The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Helicopters Model AS332C helicopters. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 21, 2025 (90 FR 13314). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2023-0145, dated July 14, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0145) (also referred to as “the MCAI”), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. The MCAI states that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations have been developed. EASA advises that airworthiness limitations and certification maintenance instructions are identified as mandatory for continued airworthiness and that Revision 9 of Airbus Helicopters Model AS332C ALS, dated July 27, 2022, has been issued to specify all service life limits and maintenance tasks for Model AS332C helicopters and separate the airworthiness limitations from the Master Servicing Manual.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require revising the ALS of the existing MM or ICAs and the existing approved maintenance or inspection program, as applicable. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of critical parts and primary structural components, which if not addressed could result in loss of control of the helicopter.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-0467.

The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the costs.

These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2023-0145, which specifies replacing components before exceeding their life limits and accomplishing all applicable maintenance tasks within thresholds and intervals specified in the ALS as defined in EASA AD 2023-0145. Depending on the results of the maintenance tasks, EASA AD 2023-0145 specifies accomplishing corrective action(s) or contacting Airbus Helicopters for approved instructions and accomplishing those instructions.

Additionally, EASA AD 2023-0145 specifies revising the Aircraft Maintenance Programme (AMP) by incorporating the limitations, tasks, and associated thresholds and intervals described in the specified ALS, as applicable. Revising the AMP constitutes terminating action for the requirement to record accomplishment of the actions of replacing components before exceeding their life limits and accomplishing maintenance tasks within thresholds and intervals specified in the applicable ALS as required by EASA AD 2023-0145 for demonstration of AD compliance on a continued basis.

This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 105 helicopters of U.S. registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD.

Revising the ALS of the existing MM or ICAs and the existing approved maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, takes 1 work-hour, for an estimated cost of $85 per helicopter and $8,925 for the U.S. fleet.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority, as it establishes Class E2 and removes Class E4 airspace in Jacksonville, NC.

The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA 2025-0931 in the Federal Register (90 FR 20264; May 13, 2025), proposing to establish Class E2 and remove Class E4 airspace at New River MCAS, Jacksonville, NC. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 6002, 6004, and 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11J, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11J, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 to establish Class E2 and remove Class E4 airspace for New River MCAS, Jacksonville, NC.

This action establishes Class E2 airspace extending upward from the surface within a 5-mile radius of New River MCAS. This Class E2 airspace area is effective during the specific days and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective days and times will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

Additionally, this action removes the Class E4 airspace for New River MCAS, Jacksonville, NC. Class E4 airspace is no longer required for the safety and management of IFR operations in the area.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant the preparation of an environmental assessment.

The Department is amending ITAR § 126.1 pursuant to recent UNSCRs. Additionally, the Department is making other corrections and clarifications to the ITAR in this rule, including revising ITAR § 120.23 paragraph (a) to amend the list of NATO members to add Finland and Sweden and revise the reference to the Czech Republic to Czechia; paragraph (b) to amend the list of major non-NATO allies by adding Colombia, Kenya, and Qatar and removing Afghanistan; paragraph (c) to amend the list of countries in the Wassenaar Arrangement by revising the reference to the Czech Republic to Czechia; removing duplicative references to the Russian Federation from ITAR § 120.54(a)(5)(iv) and (v); revising ITAR § 126.1(a) to improve its readability by restructuring it to set out its existing exceptions as discreet subparagraphs; and updating the table associated with ITAR § 126.1(d)(2).

The ITAR § 126.1 changes found in this rule are as follows:

On June 27, 2024, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) adopted Resolution 2738 to support efforts promoting peace and stability in the DRC against continued threats from armed groups operating in the country. In addition to renewing the United Nations (UN) arms embargo against non-governmental entities and individuals, this resolution reaffirmed there is no longer a requirement to pre-notify the DRC Sanctions Committee of shipments of arms and related materiel to the DRC Government, or any provision to the DRC Government of assistance, advice, or training related to military activities in the DRC. The Department is amending ITAR § 126.1(i) to remove this pre-notification requirement. In addition, the Department is amending paragraph (i) by inserting an “or” between the final two paragraphs describing situations in which a license or other approval may be issued. The “or” was inadvertently omitted when the entry was amended by 81 FR 66804, Sept. 29, 2016.

On October 18, 2024, the UNSC adopted Resolution 2752, which renewed and revised the UN arms embargo on Haiti. This resolution was intended to further support the Haitian Government's efforts to counter increasing gang violence and criminality that threaten regional peace and stability. The Department is amending ITAR § 126.1(j) to implement recent changes to the UN arms embargo on Haiti related to exports, and the Department is choosing to maintain the inclusion of imports in ITAR § 126.1(j) for policy reasons. Because this amendment involves the removal of paragraph (j)(2), the Department also takes this opportunity to restructure the entry to be consistent with the format for other entries in that section. First, ITAR § 126.1(j) is revised to include the standard policy text previously found at paragraph (j)(1) and the subsequent subordinate paragraphs are redesignated from (i) through (iii) to (1) through (3). Second, new paragraph (j)(1) (formerly (j)(1)(i)) is revised to broaden the existing text to allow for case-by-case consideration of defense article and defense service exports “to or by,” instead of “to,” recipients identified in the paragraph. Third, new paragraph (j)(2) (formerly paragraph (j)(1)(ii)) is revised to permit consideration on a case-by-case basis of exports of defense articles and defense services to Haiti that have been pre-approved by the UNSC Haiti Sanctions Committee. Finally, new paragraph (j)(3) (formerly paragraph (j)(1)(iii)) is revised to permit case-by-case consideration of exports to Haiti of non-lethal military equipment solely for humanitarian or protective use and related technical assistance or training, when intended to further the objectives of peace and stability in Haiti, thereby broadening an existing exclusion for personal protective equipment. In line with these changes, the Department is also amending this paragraph to remove former paragraph (j)(2).

To support the political stabilization of Libya, and in response to concerns about the growing influence of armed groups in the country, the UNSC adopted Resolution 2769 on January 16, 2025. This revised the existing UN arms embargo by excluding from its scope defense services for the sole purpose of promoting reunification of Libyan military and security institutions, as well as temporary exports of defense articles in support of those activities, as notified in advance to the UNSC Libya Sanctions Committee. Additionally, another exclusion was added for temporary exports to Libya of military aircraft and naval vessels delivering items not otherwise subject to the UN arms embargo, along with any defense articles that remain aboard the vessel or aircraft while in Libya. The resolution also contains an exception for protective clothing for personal use by UN, media, humanitarian, and development personnel and others; small arms, light weapons, and related materiel to certain actors when pre-notified to the UNSC Libya Sanctions Committee; non-lethal military equipment intended solely for humanitarian or protective use, and certain other exceptions. The Department is amending ITAR § 126.1(k) to implement these changes and to remove the existing (k)(1) paragraph, which was removed from the UN arms embargo exclusions through UNSC Resolution 2009 on September 16, 2011.

On December 1, 2023, the UNSC adopted two resolutions intended to refocus its arms embargo in support of the Government of the Federal Republic of Somalia's efforts to counter Al-Shabaab, a terrorist group in Somalia. The first, Resolution 2713, applied a comprehensive arms embargo on all deliveries of weapons, ammunition, and military equipment to Somalia with exceptions for deliveries to the Government of the Federal Republic of Somalia, the Somali National Army, the Somali National Intelligence and Security Agency, the Somali National Police Force, and the Somali Custodial Corps, as well as certain other exceptions in the resolution. The second, Resolution 2714, formally lifted the prior nationwide arms embargo on Somalia that had been in place since the adoption of Resolution 733 in 1992. These measures were reauthorized and modified in Resolution 2776 on March 3, 2025. The Department is amending ITAR § 126.1(m) to implement these changes.

On July 30, 2024, the UNSC adopted Resolution 2745, which modified the existing UN arms embargo toward CAR in recognition of the country's security sector reforms and the continuing need to ensure peace and stability within its borders. This resolution lifted the arms embargo for CAR and the associated UNSC Central African Republic Sanctions Committee reporting requirements while the arms embargo remains in place for armed groups and associated individuals operating within CAR. The Department is amending ITAR § 126.1(u) to update the regulations with the corresponding changes adopted through Resolution 2745.

On September 11, 2024, the UNSC adopted Resolution 2750, which renewed the UN arms embargo on Sudan in response to continuing conflict in Darfur. The Department is amending ITAR § 126.1(v) to implement this resolution and prior provisions through the deletion of ITAR § 126.1(v)(4), which allowed for a case-by-case review of licenses or other approvals involving assistance and supplies provided in support of implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. This removal requires minor conforming changes to paragraphs (v)(2) and (v)(3).

On May 30, 2024, the UNSC adopted Resolution 2731, which renewed the UN arms embargo on South Sudan in response to sustained civil strife within the country. This embargo does not apply to defense article and defense service exports to UN personnel and certain UN-authorized missions; non-lethal military equipment and related technical assistance for humanitarian or protective use, as notified in advance to the UNSC South Sudan Sanctions Committee; protective clothing for the personal use of UN personnel, media members, and humanitarian and development workers and associated personnel; arms and related material temporarily exported by a state to protect or evacuate its people as notified to the UNSC South Sudan Sanctions Committee; arms and related material, including technical assistance, to or in support of the African Union Regional Task Force for the purpose of countering the Lord's Resistance Army as notified to the UNSC South Sudan Sanctions Committee; arms and related material, including technical assistance, to support peace agreement implementation as pre-approved by the UNSC South Sudan Sanctions Committee; and other arms and technical assistance pre-approved by the UNSC South Sudan Sanctions Committee. The arms embargo was previously revised on May 26, 2022, through Resolution 2633, which created an exclusion for exports of non-lethal military equipment solely in support of peace agreement implementation when pre-notified to the UNSC South Sudan Sanctions Committee. It was also previously revised on May 30, 2023, by Resolution 2683, which removed the pre-notification requirement on that new exclusion. The Department is amending ITAR § 126.1(w) to reflect these UNSC resolutions.

Other corrections and clarifications found in this rule are as follows:

• In § 120.23, paragraph (a), references to Finland and Sweden are added to the list of member states of NATO and the reference to the Czech Republic is revised to Czechia; in paragraph (b), Qatar, Colombia, and Kenya are added, and Afghanistan is removed from the list of countries designated as major non-NATO allies, see 87 FR 15025, Mar. 17, 2022, 87 FR 32943, May 31, 2022, 89 FR 57055, July 12, 2024, and 87 FR 60057, Oct. 4, 2022, respectively; and in paragraph (c), the reference to the Czech Republic is revised to Czechia.

• In ITAR § 120.54(a)(5)(iv) and (v), the Russian Federation is removed, as the country was added to ITAR § 126.1 by 86 FR 14802, Mar. 18, 2021.

• ITAR § 126.1(a) is restructured without substantive changes to improve its clarity.

• In § 126.1, table 2 to paragraph (d)(2) is amended by inverting the entries for Ethiopia and Eritrea to be in the correct alphabetical order, and reinserting an entry for Cambodia, which was inadvertently omitted from the directional table by 89 FR 18796, Mar. 15, 2024. Although omitted from the table, the Department notes that paragraph (o) is the controlling provision, and not the alphabetically sorted table 2 to paragraph (d)(2), which is included as a guide to assist the reader in locating the relevant country paragraph. Because of its inclusion at paragraph (o), Cambodia remained subject to the policy to deny licenses or other approvals for exports and imports of defense articles and defense services, except as otherwise provided, during its absence from the table.

• In § 126.1(l), the Department amends the paragraph regarding the policy towards Russia to eliminate from the regulatory text the expired exception allowing case-by-case review of requests for authorization for commercial space launches (see 86 FR 14802, Mar. 18, 2021).

• In § 126.1, as part of its reorganization efforts to standardize text throughout the ITAR when otherwise revising a section, the Department amends certain paragraphs in order to adopt a uniform style of list regarding exceptions to the original policy statement of the introductory text of each paragraph. Whereas previously the exceptions lists concluded with either an “and” or an “or” between the penultimate and final exceptions of the list, the Department amends affected paragraphs in this section to use “or” where appropriate. These changes are to paragraphs (f)(1) and (j)(2). A similar revision is described above in the preamble text specific to the DRC.

This rulemaking is exempt from the rulemaking requirements of section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1) as a military or foreign affairs function of the United States.

Since this rule is exempt from the notice-and-comment provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, the rule does not require analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This rulemaking does not involve a mandate that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions are deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

The Department does not believe this rulemaking is a major rule within the definition of 5 U.S.C. 804.

This rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this rulemaking.

Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Orders 13563, directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects). As a result of this change, certain exemptions to licensing requirements will not be available for exports, and temporary imports destined for or originating in the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Libya, Somalia, South Sudan, or Sudan. However, a license or other approval may be issued on a case-by-case basis as described below. Because the scope of this rule does not impose significant additional regulatory requirements or obligations, the Department believes costs associated with this rule will be minimal. This rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 14192 because it relates to a foreign affairs function of the United States. This rule has been designated a “non-significant regulatory action” by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs under Executive Order 12866.

The Department of State has reviewed this rulemaking in light of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.

The Department of State determined that this rulemaking will not have tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not preempt tribal law. Accordingly, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rulemaking.

This rulemaking does not impose or revise any information collections subject to 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

For the reasons set forth above, the Department of State amends title 22, chapter I, subchapter M, parts 120 and 126 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule under the authority in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This statutory provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard was notified of this event on May 27, 2025, and must establish this safety zone by July 5, 2025, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by the fireworks display. The Coast Guard therefor lacks sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then a period to consider those comments before issuing the rule.

Also, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be contrary to public interest because prompt action is needed to the potential safety hazards associated with fireworks launched from Conn Brown Harbor over the waters of Redfish Bay.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port, Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks display, occurring from 9:15 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 5, 2025, will be a safety concern for anyone within the waters of the Redfish Bay area within a 600-foot radius around the launching platform from which the display will be launched. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks display occurs.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 9:15 p.m. through 10 p.m. on the night of July 5, 2025. The safety zone area encompasses a 600-foot radius around the launching platform at Conn Brown Harbor in Redfish Bay, at 27°54′33.94″ N, 97°7′50.65″ W. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the temporary safety zone during the effective period without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative, who may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) or by telephone at (361) 939-0450. The Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Safety Marine Information Broadcasts to advise the public of this safety zone.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.

Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it.

This regulatory action determination is based on the small size and short duration of the safety zone. The temporary safety zone will be enforced for the short period of less than one hour, on the night of July 5, 2025, when vessel traffic is normally low. The zone is limited to a 600-foot radius around the fireworks launching position over the navigable waters of Redfish Bay. The rule does not completely restrict the traffic within a waterway and allows mariners to request permission to enter the zone.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves establishment of a temporary safety zone for navigable waters of Redfish Bay in a zone defined by a 600-foot radius around the launching platform, located at the following point: 27°54′33.94″ N, 97°7′50.65″ W. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule under the authority in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This statutory provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard was notified of this event on June 2, 2025, and must establish this safety zone by July 4, 2025, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by the fireworks display. The Coast Guard therefore lacks sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then a period to consider those comments before issuing the rule.

Also, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be contrary to public interest because prompt action is needed to the potential safety hazards associated with fireworks launched from a barge over the waters of Corpus Christi Bay.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port, Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks display, occurring from 9 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4, 2025, will be a safety concern for anyone within the waters of the Corpus Christi Bay area within a 900-foot radius around the barge from which the display will be launched. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks display occurs.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 9 p.m. through 10 p.m. on the night of July 4, 2025. The safety zone area encompasses a 900-foot radius around the fireworks barge in Corpus Christi Bay, at approximately 27°47′44.1″ N, 97°22′54.6″ W. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the temporary safety zone during the effective period without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative, who may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) or by telephone at (361) 939-0450. The Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Safety Marine Information Broadcasts to advise the public of this safety zone.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.

Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it.

This regulatory action determination is based on the small size and short duration of the safety zone. The temporary safety zone will be enforced for the short period of one hour, on the night of July 4, 2025, when vessel traffic is normally low. The zone is limited to a 900-foot radius around the fireworks launching position in the navigable waters of Corpus Christi Bay. The rule does not completely restrict the traffic within a waterway and allows mariners to request permission to enter the zone.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves establishment of a temporary safety zone for navigable waters of Corpus Christi Bay in a zone defined by a 900-foot radius around a fireworks barge, located at approximately: 27°47′44.1″ N, 97°22′54.6″ W. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

In 2023, the Coast Guard received notification from the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT) concerning the replacement of the Neil R. Underwood Memorial Bridge that carries NH 1A Ocean Boulevard traffic over the Hampton River from the town of Seabrook, NH, to the town of Hampton, NH. The project includes the removal of the existing movable single leaf bascule span bridge and construction of a new fixed high-level steel girder bridge built on a new alignment approximately 60 feet west (shoreward) of the existing bridge.

Major construction activity began earlier this year with a temporary trestle being installed west of the new bridge location to provide access for the new bridge construction. Once the temporary trestle is installed, drilled shaft foundations will be installed for the new piers. Next, cofferdams will be installed to construct the footings for piers 1 and 6, while precast concrete forms will be installed to construct the footings for piers 2 through 5. Once the pier footings are constructed, the cofferdams will be removed, and the remaining pier construction will commence. Abutments will be constructed, followed by the superstructure. Once the new bridge is constructed, the temporary trestle will be removed and installed east of the old bridge to provide construction access for old bridge removal.

Although waterway traffic will be maintained within the existing federal navigational channel during construction and demolition activities, some equipment barges may block half the navigation channel. The restricted channel, along with heavy seasonal traffic and strong tidal currents, creates a hazardous condition.

Based on the hazardous condition created by this construction, the First Coast Guard District Commander has determined that establishment of a temporary RNA and safety zone through rulemaking is warranted to ensure the safety of life, property, and the environment within the regulated area.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary interim rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a NPRM with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest since the hazardous conditions are being presented now. For the same justification, the Coast Guard also finds that good cause exists to issue the rule prior to providing notice and taking comments because it would delay promulgating a rule. Construction to replace the Neil R. Underwood Bridge is currently underway, creating a hazardous condition, therefore there is an urgent need for the RNA and safety zone to protect the safety of both the construction crew and the waterway users operating in the vicinity of the bridge construction. An interruption of the project to accommodate a full notice and comment period would also delay necessary operations, result in increased costs, and postponement to the completion date of the bridge project and subsequent reopening of the replacement to the Neil R. Underwood Bridge for normal operations.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register considering the hazardous conditions created by the replacement of the bridge. Delaying the effective date of this rule would be contrary to public interest because immediate action is needed to respond to the hazardous condition created by the replacement of the bridge.

Although this regulation is published as an interim rule without prior notice, public comment is nevertheless desirable to ensure that the regulation is both workable and reasonable. Accordingly, persons wishing to comment may do so by submitting written comments as set out under ADDRESSES in this preamble. Commenters should include their names and addresses, identify the docket number for the regulation, and give reasons for their comments. If the Coast Guard determines that changes to the temporary interim rule are necessary, we will publish a temporary final rule or other appropriate document.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Commander of the First Coast Guard District has determined that potential hazards associated with this bridge construction will continue to exist through December 31, 2030, creating a safety concern for anyone transiting the Hampton River in the vicinity of the Seabrook-Hampton Bridge removal and replacement bridge construction project. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the regulated area while bridge replacement operations are taking place.

This rule establishes both an RNA and, when enforced, a safety zone from July 1, 2025, through 11:59 p.m. on December 31, 2030.

First, the Coast Guard is creating a RNA, as shown in figure 1, to include all navigable waters of the Hampton River, mile 0.0, at the inlet to Hampton Harbor, Hampton, NH, surface to bottom, encompassed by a line connecting the following approximate positions, 42°53′41.59″ N 070°48′29.064″ W (Hampton Harbor North Jetty Daybeacon “8” LLNR 8945); thence along the jetty to 42°53′48.1″ N 070°48′38.4″ W; thence along the shore line to 42°53′50.9″ N 070°48′58.2″ W (center Hampton Bridge north side approach); thence along the shore line to 42°53′56.52″ N 070°49′4.77″ W (Hampton State Pier); thence to 42°53′55.73″ N 070°49′12.72″ W; thence to 42°53′41.78″ N 070°49′14.11″ W; thence to 42°53′41.67″ N 070°49′8.63″ W” (Harborside Dunes); thence along the shore to 42°53′41.09″ N 070°49′0.87″ W (center Hampton Bridge south side approach); thence along the shore to 42°53′33.077″ N 070°48′38.724″ W (Hampton Harbor South Daybeacon “H” LLNR 8955); thence to the point of origin, expressed in Degrees (°) Minutes (′) Seconds (″) (DMS) based on North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83).

Section 487(a)(24) of the HEA establishes the requirement in the Federal Student Aid Program Participation Agreement that proprietary institutions derive not less than 10 percent of their revenue from non-federal sources. Among other things, Section 487(d) of the HEA defines how proprietary institutions calculate the percentage of their revenue that is derived from non-federal sources and outlines sanctions for proprietary institutions that fail to meet the requirement in Section 487(a). On March 11, 2021, the ARP was signed into law. Section 2013 of the ARP amended the scope of the revenue requirements under Section 487(a) of the HEA. Prior to the enactment of the ARP, as a condition for participation in the Title IV, HEA programs, institutions had to derive not less than 10 percent of their revenue from sources other than the federal student assistance programs authorized under Title IV of the HEA. The ARP amended that provision by requiring proprietary institutions to derive not less than 10 percent of their revenue from non-federal education sources.

On October 28, 2022, the Department published a final rule to amend the Department's regulations relating to the 90/10 Rule under (34 CFR 668.28). The final rule amended several parts of the 90/10 Rule to implement the ARP, among other things. In addition to specific amendments to the regulatory text, the Department also announced in the preamble that it was restricting the ability of institutions to include non-federal revenue received for educational programs that are ineligible for HEA Title IV funding from programs offered through distance education or at unapproved locations. In relevant part and in response to a public comment, the Department stated it appreciated “the commenter's support for allowing institutions to include revenue from an ineligible program offered at an employer facility” though it disagreed “with commenters that we should allow proprietary institutions to count funds generated from programs offered at other unapproved locations or through distance education as non-Federal revenue in their 90/10 calculations.” The Department worked with the Committee to develop the language regarding the location of ineligible programs and believes that the regulations strike a balance between providing necessary consumer protections guardrails for purposes of 90/10, while allowing proprietary institutions to incorporate revenue from non-Title IV programs of value to students at other approved locations that provide Title IV programs and from their main campus.

The Department also noted that “guardrails negotiated by the Committee require proprietary institutions to exclude revenue generated from ineligible programs offered through distance education. Restricting program revenues for 90/10 to sources from approved locations will better provide a nexus for those ineligible programs to be offered by the institution's instructors.” Doing so “also ensure[s] that the programs are offered from locations that have authorization from an institution's accrediting agency and from the states in which they are located.”

The Department believed “limiting these ineligible programs from distance education or from unapproved locations will also permit greater oversight of the reported revenues by the Department.” It found that “after weighing the potential benefits and risks, the Department has determined that the risk of abuse outweighs the potential benefits.” Therefore, the Department declined “to allow institutions to include revenue generated from these ineligible programs in their 90/10 calculations. We further note that these regulations only govern revenue generated from ineligible programs that an institution counts in its 90/10 calculation and does not exclude a proprietary institution's ability to offer these programs.”87 FR 65450.

But the Department did not include amendments in the final rule to the actual regulatory text or the accompanying Appendix to incorporate the assertions contained within the preamble text cited above. The Department simply refers to “location” in 34 CFR 668.28(a)(3)(iii) but does not specify the modality of instruction. When calculating revenue for the purposes of eligible programs under the 90/10 Rule, the regulation makes no distinction between distance education and in-person instruction. As a result, if the Department intended to break new ground in the regulation by creating a new distinction for ineligible programs (despite there being no distinction for ineligible program under Section 487(a)(24) of the HEA), one would expect it to do so on clear terms. But the Department did not make any substantive changes to the 90/10 Rule explicitly relating to modality in the final rule itself; nor did it make any changes between its proposal in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the final rule.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) enables agencies to publish interpretive rules outside the informal notice-and-comment rulemaking process. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), (d)(2). Unlike legislative rules, “interpretive rules do not have the force and effect of law and are not accorded that weight in the adjudicatory process.” Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass'n, 575 U.S. 92, 97, 135 S. Ct. 1199, 1204 (2015)(internal citations omitted). Interpretive rules are “issued by an agency to advise the public of the agency's construction of the statutes and rules which it administers.” Shalala v. Guernsey Memorial Hospital, 514 U.S. 87, 99 (1995). A legal interpretation articulated in the preamble to a final rule has not gone through notice and comment rulemaking and so cannot legally have a binding effect. See Wilgar Land Co., 85 F.4th at 837 (holding that a preamble that responds to comments as part of a final rule is an interpretive rule); Fertilizer Inst. v. EPA, 935 F.2d 1303, 1308 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (concluding that the preamble was an interpretive, not legislative, rule). In other words, agencies “cannot use preambles to add substantive duties that the regulations themselves do not contain.” Wilgar Land Co., 85 F.4th at 837. Id.

“The critical distinction between legislative and interpretative rules is that, whereas interpretive rules simply state what the administrative agency thinks the statute means, and only remind affected parties of existing duties, a legislative rule imposes new rights or duties.” Iowa League of Cities v. EPA, 711 F.3d 844, 873 (8th Cir. 2013) (cleaned up). In determining whether a rule is legislative or interpretive, courts consider whether the agency intended to speak with the force of law. See Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, 920 F.3d 1, 18 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (citing Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 136 S. Ct. 2117, 2122, (2016)). In other words, if the agency used language that conveys that its pronouncements must be followed, the rule is legislative; by contrast, interpretive rules use permissive language that does not purport to bind private actions. Id.

Here, the Department's discussion in the preamble text uses language that purports to bind private action in calculating the revenue percentages under the 90/10 Rule. Indeed, the Department wrote, “we decline to allow institutions to include revenue generated from these ineligible programs in their 90/10 calculations.” The phrase “we decline to allow” is another way of saying “we prohibit.” Prohibitions are mandatory, not permissive. Therefore, the preamble most resembles a legislative rule because it claims to categorically prohibit certain types of private conduct, namely prohibiting institutions from including revenue generated from certain ineligible programs in their 90/10 calculations.

As discussed above, legislative rules must go through notice-and-comment rulemaking and cannot be included in the preamble text to a final rule. Yet here, the Department did not include any changes to the regulatory text to incorporate the preamble text quoted herein. Of note, the Department's regulations include eight separate categories of types of revenue that are excluded from revenue calculation for the purpose of calculating the 90/10 Rule. 34 CFR 668.28(a)(6)(i)-(viii). The Department could have added additional categories of excluded revenue to 34 CFR 668.28(a)(6), but it declined to do so. Thus, because the Department did not make the changes to the actual regulatory text, the preamble text cited above is non-binding and does not have the force of law.

As discussed above, the Department believes the preamble was procedurally deficient under the APA; however, even if the Department had properly created a distinction for these ineligible programs under the 90/10 regulations, it is clear that such a regulation would have been unlawful. See Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 400 (2024) (holding that if a federal agency's interpretation of a federal statute is not the best reading of the law, then it is not permissible). Section 487(a)(24) of the HEA provides that to be eligible for Title IV programs, proprietary institutions of higher education must “derive not less than ten percent of such institution's revenues from sources other than federal funds that are disbursed or delivered to or on behalf of a student to be used to attend such institution . . .” In making these calculations, Section 487(d)(1) provides very prescriptive rules regarding what revenue is to be included in the institution's calculation of “federal funds” (the `90' side) and what other sources of funds may be counted (the `10' side).

As it pertains to the inclusion of revenue from ineligible programs, section 487(d)(1)(B)(iii) provides that institutions consider as revenue only those funds generated by the institution from:

(iii) funds paid by a student, or on behalf of a student by a party other than the institution, for an education or training program that is not eligible for funds under this title, if the program—

(I) is approved or licensed by the appropriate State agency;

(II) is accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the Secretary; or

(III) provides an industry-recognized credential or certification.

When interpreting the statute, the text should be construed as a whole, as statutory enactments contain interrelated parts that may provide context when construing one of its parts. See Scalia & Garner, Reading Law 167 (2012); United Savings Ass'n v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Assocs., 484 U.S. 365, 371 (1988) (a statutory “provision that may seem ambiguous in isolation is often clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme—because the same terminology is used elsewhere in a context that makes its meaning clear, or because only one of the permissible meanings produces a substantive effect that is compatible with the rest of the law” (internal citation omitted)); Merit Mgmt. Grp., LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., 583 U.S. 366, 378 (2018) (considering “[t]he language of [the statutory provision at issue], the specific context in which that language is used, and the broader statutory structure”); Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133, 139 (2010) (“Ultimately, context determines meaning.”)

Congress's careful construction of subsection (iii) is authoritative. Unlike the interpretation in the preamble, nothing contained within the clause directs the Secretary to consider the modality of educational delivery, such as distance education. Here, when considering the broader statutory enactment throughout the HEA, it is clear that Congress knows how to create distinct rules for distance education programs when it wishes to do so. See Whitfield v. United States, 543 U.S. 209, 216 (2005) (“Congress has included an express overt-act requirement in at least 22 other current conspiracy statutes, clearly demonstrating that it knows how to impose such a requirement when it wishes to do so”). Within the text of the HEA, Congress has used the phrase “distance education” 44 times, oftentimes creating distinct rules for such programs under the HEA. Here, the Department presumes that, if Congress had wanted to create a distinction for revenue from distance education programs for the purposes of the 90/10 Rule, it would have said so. It did not, so neither may the Department.

In the same way, and unlike the language of the preamble, subsection (iii) does not authorize the Secretary to engage in a process of “weighing the potential benefits and risks” of including or excluding certain types of revenue. There is no indication in the statute that Congress intended to delegate that sort of legislative judgment to the Secretary. Instead, Congress wrote a granular formula for calculating revenue directly into the statute, leaving little-to-no room for regulatory interpretation, and certainly no room for a policy exercise of “weighing the potential benefits and risks.”

Finally, subsection (iii) does not speak of “unapproved locations,” that are mentioned in the preamble. To the contrary, it creates a disjunctive three-part test for including revenue from ineligible programs. So long as funds are “paid by a student, or on behalf of a student by a party other than the institution” such revenue may be included if any of the following criteria are met: (1) the program is approved or licensed by the appropriate State agency; (2) the program is accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the Secretary; or (3) the program provides an industry-recognized credential or certification. 20 U.S.C. 1094(d)(1)(b)(iii)

As shown above, none of the subclauses under subsection (iii) deal with the location of instruction, physical or otherwise. As such, location is not relevant for the purposes of calculating revenue within this context under the 90/10 Rule.

Finally, the Department notes that regulatory changes made in the ARP only concerned the shifting of certain types of federal revenue received by institutions from the `10' side to the `90' side of the 90/10 Rule. The ARP did not make any specific amendments to the 90/10 Rule to reduce the overall amount of revenue. Although the Department was not limited in its rulemaking to making regulatory amendments to exclusively implement the ARP, Congress also could have made changes to exclude other types of revenue from the 90/10 Rule if it wanted to within the ARP. Congress chose not to do so, which provides some evidence that Congress was satisfied with the statutory and regulatory balance that had already been struck relating to the inclusion of revenue for certain types of ineligible programs. This provides further evidence that the interpretive rule within the preamble conflicts with the carefully crafted statutory design.

Interpretive rules do not have effective dates and, as such, institutions may revise their revenue calculations under 34 CFR 668.28 for fiscal years that have already concluded. See Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, 920 F.3d 1, 20 (D.C. Cir. 2019).

The Department's interpretation announced herein supersedes the interpretive rule that was published in the preamble to the 2022 final rule. This interpretation represents the Department's current interpretation and may be consulted by the Department when enforcing the 90/10 Rule. But this interpretation is not binding on regulated entities or the Department.

Accessible Format: On request to the program contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible format.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

This document of the U.S. Department of Education was signed on July 1, 2025, by Linda E. McMahon, Secretary of Education. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by the U.S. Department of Education. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned has been authorized to sign the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the U.S. Department of Education. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

Table of Contents I. What is being addressed in this document? II. Summary of the Proposed Action and the EPA's Reasons for This Final Action III. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Action and Responses to Comments IV. Final Action V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What is being addressed in this document?

The EPA is approving West Virginia's regional haze SIP revision for the second implementation period, also referred to as the second planning period. As required by section 169A of the CAA, the RHR calls for State and Federal agencies to work together to improve visibility in 156 national parks and wilderness areas, known as mandatory Class I Federal areas. 1 The rule requires the States, in coordination with the EPA, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, and other interested parties, to develop and implement air quality protection plans to reduce the pollution that causes visibility impairment in mandatory Class I Federal areas. Visibility impairing pollutants include fine and coarse particulate matter (PM) ( e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust) and their precursors ( e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), oxides of nitrogen (NO X ), and, in some cases, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia (NH 3 )). As discussed in our proposed rulemaking, in section III of this preamble, and in the accompanying Response to Comments (RTC) document, the EPA finds that West Virginia's regional haze SIP meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for the regional haze second planning period.

On August 12, 2022, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WV DEP) submitted a revision to the West Virginia SIP to address regional haze for the second planning period. WV DEP submitted this SIP revision to satisfy the requirements of the CAA's regional haze program pursuant to CAA sections 169A and 169B and 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 51.308.

The EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing disapproval of West Virginia's August 12, 2022 SIP revision on January 21, 2025 (90 FR 6932). The public comment period closed on February 20, 2025. During that public notice-and-comment period, the EPA received six sets of comments. The full text of comments received on that NPRM are available via Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2024-0625 at www.regulations.gov.

The EPA subsequently published a new NPRM on April 18, 2025 (90 FR 16478), that withdrew the NPRM published on January 21, 2025 (90 FR 6932), commenced a public notice-and-comment period via Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2025-0174, and proposed to fully approve all elements of West Virginia's August 12, 2022 SIP revision as meeting the requirements of the CAA and RHR. In the April 18, 2025 NPRM, the EPA also announced a new policy that, where visibility conditions for a Class I Federal area impacted by a State are below the Unform Rate of Progress (URP) and the State has considered the four statutory factors, the State will have presumptively demonstrated reasonable progress for the second planning period for that area. The NPRM provided background on the requirements of the CAA and RHR, summarized West Virginia's regional haze SIP submittal, and explained the EPA's rationale for its proposed action. That background and rationale will not be restated in full here.

In this final action, the EPA is affirming that it is now the Agency's policy that, where visibility conditions for a Class I Federal area impacted by a State are below the URP and the State has considered the four statutory factors, the State will have presumptively demonstrated reasonable progress for the second planning period for that area. The EPA acknowledges that this final action reflects a change in policy as to how the URP should be used in the evaluation of regional haze second planning period SIPs but believes that this policy better aligns with the purpose of the statute and RHR: achieving “reasonable” progress towards natural visibility.

As described in the April 18, 2025 (90 FR 16478) NPRM, the EPA has discretion and authority to change policy. In FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court plainly stated that an agency is free to change a prior policy and “need not demonstrate . . . that the reasons for the new policy are better than the reasons for the old one; it suffices that the new policy is permissible under the statute, that there are good reasons for it, and that the agency believes it to be better.” 566 U.S. 502, 515 (2009) (referencing Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983)). See also Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Assn., 135 S. Ct. 1199 (2015).

The Class I areas impacted by emissions from WV are all below the URP, and WV's SIP submittal demonstrated that the state took into consideration the four reasonable progress factors listed in CAA 169A(g)(1)  2 with respect to an adequate number of emissions sources. Thus, the EPA has determined that WV's SIP revision is fully approvable under the Agency's new policy. Indeed, we think this policy better aligns with the statutory goal because it recognizes the considerable improvements in visibility impairment that have been made by a wide variety of State and Federal programs in recent decades. 3

Understanding what the URP is and how it has been used in the context of the RHR is important to understanding the implications of the policy change the EPA is finalizing in this action. In developing the regulations required by CAA section 169A(b), the EPA established the concept of URP for each Class I area. The URP is determined by drawing a straight line from the measured 2000-2004 baseline conditions (in deciviews) for the 20% most impaired days at each Class I area to the estimated 20% most impaired days natural conditions (in deciviews) in 2064. From this calculation, a URP value can be calculated for each year between 2004 and 2064. For each Class I area, there is a regulatory requirement to compare the projected visibility impairment (represented by the reasonable progress goal, or “RPG”) at the end of each planning period to the URP ( e.g., in 2028 for the second planning period). 4 40 CFR 308(f)(1)(vi). If the projected RPG is above the URP, then an additional “robust demonstration” requirement is triggered for each state that contributes to that Class I Federal area. 40 CFR 308(f)(3)(ii).

In comments on the EPA's January 21, 2025 (90 FR 6932) NPRM, West Virginia explained the following: “The DAQ [WV DEP's Division of Air Quality] asserts progress towards decreasing visibility impairment since the first implementation period has immensely exceeded the expectations of the EPA, States, Federal land managers, and the public, causing an unreasonable belief additional visibility improvement can continue indefinitely at such a rapid pace via arbitrary federally enforceable emissions limits.”  5 The State also disagreed “with the assertion that its four-factor analysis was insufficient because it did not reach the conclusion additional controls were required.”  6 Similarly, Mon Power commented that Class I Federal areas “are presently well below the URP glide paths, proving that already implemented past measures have been and continue to be successful.”  7

In the 2017 RHR Revisions, the EPA addressed the role of the URP as it relates to a State's development of its second planning period SIP. 82 FR 3078 (January 10, 2017). Specifically, in response to comments suggesting that the URP should be considered a “safe harbor” and relieve States of any obligation to consider the four statutory factors, the EPA explained that the URP was not intended to be such a safe harbor. 82 FR at 3099, January 10, 2017. The EPA summarized such comments as follows:

Other comments indicated a similar approach, such as “a somewhat narrower entrance to a `safe harbor,' by suggesting that if current visibility conditions are already below the end-of-planning-period point on the URP line, a four-factor analysis should not be required.” Id. The EPA was clear in its response: “We do not agree with either of these recommendations.” The EPA explained its position as follows: “The CAA requires that each SIP revision contain long-term strategies for making reasonable progress, and that in determining reasonable progress states must consider the four statutory factors. Treating the URP as a safe harbor would be inconsistent with the statutory requirement that states assess the potential to make further reasonable progress towards natural visibility goal in every implementation period.” Id. (footnote omitted).

Importantly, the EPA's new policy does not make the URP a safe harbor. The new policy merely creates a presumption that the State's second planning period SIP is making reasonable progress for a Class I Federal Area if the State has taken into consideration the four statutory factors of 169A(g)(1) and that area is below the URP. This is consistent with the CAA and RHR.

During the public notice-and-comment period, the EPA received 22 sets of comments on its April 18, 2025 proposal. Seventeen sets of comments supported the EPA's proposed action; these included comments from various state entities, specific utility companies, and coalitions and councils representing utilities. The EPA acknowledges these supportive comments, which are included in the docket for this action.

Five sets of comments were opposed to the EPA's proposed action; these included comments from two individuals, one of the regional planning organizations for visibility, and two coalitions of conservation groups or environmental organizations.

While we address a number of these adverse comments directly in this FRN, our full responses are included in the Response to Comment (RTC) document in the docket for this action. We briefly address in this section: (1) whether the EPA's new policy is consistent with the CAA and RHR; (2) whether the EPA sufficiently justified its basis for the new policy; (3) whether the action is nationally applicable or based on a determination of nationwide scope and effect; (4) whether the action departs from national policy without complying with the EPA's consistency regulations at 40 CFR part 56; and (5) whether the WV SIP met the requirements of the new policy.

As detailed at length in the RTC document in the response at III.A.3, the EPA's new policy is consistent with the CAA. Pursuant to CAA 169A(a)(4), Congress explicitly delegated to the EPA the authority to promulgate regulations regarding reasonable progress towards meeting the national goal. As some comments suggest, to determine the measures necessary to make reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal under 169A(a)(1), Congress mandated “tak[ing] into consideration the cost of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, and the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of any existing source subject to such requirement.” CAA 169A(g)(1).

However, nothing in the statute defines what it means “to take into consideration” the four factors under CAA 169A(g)(1). Under this statutory framework, the EPA has been empowered by Congress to give meaning to this statutory phrase. Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 395 (2024). The phrase “to take into consideration” implies a broader process not limited to the four statutory factors, allowing states to weigh in other factors, like visibility, to support their determination of whether additional measures are necessary to make reasonable progress at Class I Federal areas. This follows from reasonable progress requiring the improvement of visibility. CAA 169A(b)(2). As such, visibility improvement must be a fundamental part of determining the extent of progress that is considered reasonable.

Being below the URP does not relieve a State of its obligations under the CAA and the RHR to make reasonable progress. Also, being below the URP is not a safe harbor because the EPA still reviews a State's determination of whether additional control measures are necessary for reasonable progress, whether the state submitted those measures for incorporation into the SIP, and whether the measures are consistent with other provisions in the CAA.

As required by the statute, West Virginia took into consideration the four statutory factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and determined that the sources selected were in compliance with already implemented emission control measures which continue to be successful, and that no additional SO 2 controls were necessary to make reasonable progress. Further, CAA section 169A(b)(2) requires SIPs to include “such emission limits, schedules of compliance and other measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress.” Congress explicitly stated its intent for states to only include mechanisms as may be necessary for a Class I Federal area to achieve reasonable progress. West Virginia concluded that it was not necessary to incorporate any new emission limitations, schedules of compliance, or other measures into its SIP. Thus, West Virginia did not ignore the results of its consideration of the four statutory factors. Rather, consistent with the EPA's new policy, the state properly used the URP to inform its final decision making as to the measures necessary to make reasonable progress in the second planning period.

As discussed in the RTC document at III.C.3, the EPA's change in policy is consistent with FCC v. Fox Television, 556 U.S 502 (2009). Under FCC v. Fox, an agency's change in policy is permissible if the agency acknowledges the change, believes it to be better, and “show[s] that there are good reasons for the new policy.” 556 U.S. 502, 515. In our proposal for this rulemaking, we stated our reasons for implementing this new policy. 90 FR 16478, April 18, 2025. In section I, What action is the EPA proposing?, of the rulemaking, we stated: “Based on our change in policy discussed in section V of this preamble, the EPA proposes that West Virginia's regional haze SIP meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for the regional haze second planning period.” The EPA more fully articulated the substance of the change in policy in section V, The EPA's Rationale for Proposing Approval, of that rulemaking. Id. at 16482-84. In sum, the EPA's proposal sufficiently justifies the change in policy under FCC v. Fox.

The decision in FCC v. Fox turned primarily on whether the FCC's change in policy would lead to the FCC “arbitrarily punishing parties without notice of the potential consequences of their action.” 556 U.S. at 517. As we explained in the proposal, the changed policy is prospective, which addresses the primary concern in FCC v. Fox. Additionally, the new policy “aligns with the purpose of the statute and RHR, which is achieving `reasonable' progress, not maximal progress, toward Congress' natural visibility goal.” Id. at 16483. Furthermore, we note that the legislative history of CAA section 169A is consistent with our change in policy. The reconciliation report for the 1977 CAA amendments indicates that the term “maximum feasible progress” in section 169A was changed to “reasonable progress” in the final version of the legislation passed by both chambers. See Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 Public Law 95-95 (1977), H.R. Rep. No. 95-564, at 535.

As we explain in the RTC document in the response at III.B.2, the EPA's Regional Consistency regulations at 40 CFR part 56, and in particular 40 CFR 56.5(b), are not relevant to this action. 40 CFR 56.5(b) requires that a “responsible official in a Regional office shall seek concurrence from the appropriate EPA Headquarters office on any interpretation of the Act, or rule, regulation, or program directive when such interpretation may result in application of the act or rule, regulation, or program directive that is inconsistent with Agency policy.” (emphasis added). As we expressly indicated in the proposed WV SIP approval, the approval is consistent with the announced change in agency policy. Therefore, there is no obligation under the plain language of the EPA's Regional Consistency regulations for anyone in the region to seek concurrence from EPA Headquarters to take action consistent with EPA policy. The lack of relevance of these regulations to this action accounts for the lack of materials related to compliance with the Regional Consistency process in the docket for this rulemaking.

As discussed in the RTC document in the response at III.D.2, this action is “locally or regionally applicable” under CAA section 307(b)(1) because it applies only to a SIP submission from a single state, West Virginia. See Oklahoma v. EPA, 605 U.S. __, __-__ (2025) (slip op., at 8) (a SIP is “a state-specific plan” and “the CAA recognizes this limited scope in enumerating a SIP approval as a locally or regionally applicable action”); see also, Am. Rd. & Transp. Builders Ass'n, 705 F.3d 453, 455 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (describing EPA action to approve a single SIP under CAA section 110 as the “[p]rototypical” locally or regionally applicable action). Whether our proposal to approve West Virginia's second planning period SIP “ `announc[es]' a `new' national policy” has no bearing on the applicability of EPA's final action. To determine whether an action is “nationally applicable” or “locally or regionally applicable,” “court[s] need look only to the face of the agency action, not its practical effects. . . .” EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C., 605 U.S. __ (2025) (slip op. at 12) (“[W]e determine an action's range of applicability by `look[ing] only to the face of the [action], rather than to its practical effects.' ”) (quoting Am. Rd. & Transp. Builders Ass'n., 705 F. 3d at 456) and Oklahoma, 605 U.S. __, __-__ (2025) (slip op. at 9) (basis for EPA action is not relevant to determining its applicability); see also Sierra Club v. EPA, 926 F.3d 844, 849 (D.C. Cir. 2019) and RMS of Georgia, LLC v. EPA, 64 F.4th 1368, 1372 (11th Cir. 2023) (“our sister circuits have established a consensus that we should begin our analysis by analyzing the nature of the EPA's action, not the specifics of the petitioner's grievance”). Furthermore, the comments that claim that this action “amend[s] the nationally applicable RHR” are unsupported and incorrect. This action simply applies a new policy related to the URP in the context of the EPA's evaluation of West Virginia's regional haze SIP submission. Because this action applies a new policy to a SIP submission from West Virginia alone, it is locally or regionally, not nationally, applicable.

Second, comments that claim that the EPA “must” publish a finding that this action is “based on a determination of nationwide scope [or] effect” are also unsupported and incorrect. The Supreme Court has recognized that “[b]ecause the `nationwide scope or effect' exception can apply only when `EPA so finds and publishes' that it does, EPA can decide whether the exception is even potentially relevant.” Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C., 605 U.S. __ (slip op. at 16), citing Sierra Club v. EPA, 47 F.4th 738, 746 (D.C. Cir. 2022). As the D.C. Circuit has also stated, the “EPA's decision whether to make and publish a finding of nationwide scope or effect is committed to the agency's discretion and thus is unreviewable.” Sierra Club v. EPA, 47 F.4th at 745; see also Texas v. EPA, 983 F.3d 826, 835 (5th Cir. 2020) (“when a locally applicable action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect, the EPA has discretion to select the venue for judicial review”).

The Administrator has not made and published a finding that this action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect. Accordingly, any petition for review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate regional circuit.

Finally, as detailed in the RTC document in the responses at section IV, West Virginia met the requirements of the new policy. First, the RHR requires states to submit a long-term strategy that addresses regional haze visibility impairment for each mandatory Class I Federal area within the State and for each mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the State that may be affected by emissions from the State, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2), and the statute refers to “for a State the emissions from which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any such area” CAA section 169A(b)(2). However, there is no specific statutory or regulatory requirement to identify the precise set of Class I areas that are affected by emissions from the State of West Virginia, and there is no requirement to establish a source contribution threshold in identifying those areas. In this case, WV DEP identified affected out-of-state Class I areas in several ways, as we explain in the RTC document at response section IV.A.5, none of which are above the 2028 URP.

The EPA believes WV DEP has reasonably documented the out-of-state Class I area contributions, and they are not reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment in any area that is above the URP.

In conclusion, as discussed in more detail in the responses at section IV of the RTC document, West Virginia took into consideration the four statutory factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and determined that the specific sources selected for four-factor analyses were in compliance with already implemented emission control measures which continue to be successful, and that no additional SO 2 controls were necessary to make reasonable progress. Further, section 169A(b)(2) of the Act requires SIPs to include “such emission limits, schedules of compliance and other measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress.” Congress explicitly stated its intent for states to only include mechanisms as may be necessary for Class I Federal areas to achieve reasonable progress. West Virginia concluded that it was not necessary to incorporate any new emission limitations, schedules of compliance, or other measures into its SIP for these sources. Thus, West Virginia did not ignore the results of its consideration of the four statutory factors; rather, as supported by the new policy, the State properly used the URP to inform its final decision making as to the measures necessary to make reasonable progress in the second planning period.

The full text of comments received is included in the publicly posted docket associated with this action at www.regulations.gov. The RTC document, which is also included in the docket associated with this action, provides detailed responses to all significant comments received. The RTC document is organized by topic. Therefore, if additional information is desired concerning how the EPA addressed a particular comment, the reader should refer to the appropriate section in the RTC document.

For the reasons set forth in the April 18, 2025 NPRM, the RTC document, and in this final rule, the EPA is approving West Virginia's August 12, 2022 SIP submittal as satisfying the regional haze requirements for the second planning period contained in 40 CFR 51.308(f).

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) because SIP actions are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866:

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and

• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 5, 2025. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

On January 3, 2025 (90 FR 283), EPA proposed to approve the following portions of Ohio's December 21, 2022, attainment plan submission: the 2017 base year emissions inventory, the RFP demonstration, the motor vehicle I/M program, and the NNSR program. EPA also initiated the adequacy process for the 2023 motor vehicle emissions budgets for the Cleveland area included in this SIP submission. An explanation of the CAA requirements, a detailed analysis of the revisions, and EPA's reasons for proposing approval were provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking, and will not be restated here. The public comment period for this proposed rule ended on February 3, 2025. EPA received no comments on the proposal.

EPA is approving revisions to Ohio's SIP pursuant to section 110 and part D of the CAA and EPA's regulations promulgated thereto, because Ohio's December 21, 2022, attainment plan submission satisfies the base year emissions inventory, RFP demonstration, I/M, and NNSR requirements of the CAA for the Cleveland area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. EPA is also finding adequate and approving the 2023 motor vehicle emissions budgets associated with the Cleveland Moderate ozone nonattainment RFP demonstration.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) because SIP actions are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866;

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and

• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 5, 2025. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” means the EPA.

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires a State's SIP to include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emission activity in the State from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the NAAQS in any other State. EPA has long interpreted this language to enact a “functional prohibition” on certain emission from upwind states, necessitating the EPA's independent assessment whether those emissions will occur or have been adequately controlled in the State where they originate. 1 The EPA often refers to these requirements as Prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment of the NAAQS) and Prong 2 (interference with maintenance of the NAAQS).

On June 4, 2013, the State of Louisiana submitted to the EPA a SIP revision to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2), including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS. A copy of the submittal is in the docket for this action. Other portions of this SIP revision were addressed in 81 FR 68322 (October 4, 2016).

The EPA proposed to approve Prong 1 and Prong 2 portions of the infrastructure SIP submission submitted by the State of Louisiana on June 4, 2013, addressing interstate transport for the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS. The details of the SIP revision and rationale for the EPA's action is explained in the April 9, 2025 (90 FR 15213), notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). 2

The EPA provided a 30-day review and comment period for the April 9, 2025, proposed rulemaking. The comment period ended on May 9, 2025. We received three relevant comments in favor/support of our proposed action, one from the Louisiana Public Service Commission, one from an anonymous commentor, and one from a citizen. EPA appreciates the comments. See section II of this preamble for a brief discussion of the comments. A full copy of the comments is included in the docket for this rule.

Comment: The Louisiana Public Service Commission (LPSC) submitted a comment letter on May 9, 2025, to request the EPA to consider finalizing the NPRM. The LPSC stated that the rulemaking supports cooperative federalism, preserves the LPSC's authority to regulate retail electric rates and services, and avoids the reliability and cost challenges associated with Federal mandates.

Response: We appreciate the LPSC's comments supporting the EPA's rulemaking.

Comment: An anonymous public comment was received on April 14, 2025, that supports the EPA's NPRM. The commentor recognized the environmental and health impacts associated with SO 2 emissions and encouraged the EPA to proceed with this regulation.

Response: EPA appreciates the comments of support. EPA is committed to successful implementation of CAA required NAAQS standards.

Comment: A citizen submitted a comment on April 16, 2025, to express an appreciation of the benefits that America receives from the CAA and its regulatory requirements. The citizen expressed concerns with actions that would reduce regulations such as the “Good Neighbor Plan”. The commentor stated that the elimination of the Good Neighbor plan would result in a deterioration in air quality and citizens health.

Response: EPA acknowledges the citizen's concerns, we are committed to protecting the air quality, environment and human health through implementation of various regulations and programs, and it should be noted that this action was taken under the “Good Neighbor Plan.”

The EPA is approving the portions of the Louisiana's June 4, 2013, SIP that address two of the interstate transport requirements for the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS, prong 1 and prong 2, as these portions meet the requirements in CAA section 110 and specifically in 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA determines that the Louisiana SIP contains adequate provisions to ensure that the air emissions in the state will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS in any other state. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Act.

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) because State Implementation Plan approvals under the CAA are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866;

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and

• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 5, 2025. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:

EPA is approving a SIP revision submitted by FDEP on August 15, 2023, seeking to remove certain CAIR-related definitions, and CAIR-related portions of certain definitions, from Chapter 62-210, Stationary Sources—General Requirements, of the Florida SIP. 1 Specifically, this final action addresses definitional changes adopted by the State, effective July 3, 2018, to SIP-approved Rule 62-210.200, Definitions. These definitions are referenced throughout Chapter 62-210 and in other parts of the SIP. Approval of these changes improves consistency with Federal and State regulations.

The following definitions are being removed from the SIP: 62-210.200(52) “CAIR”; 62-210.200(53) “CAIR NO X Allowance”; 62-210.200(54) “CAIR NO X Annual Trading Program”; 62-210.200(55) “CAIR NO X Ozone Season Allowance”; 62-210.200(56) “CAIR NO X Ozone Season Trading Program”; 62-210.200(57) “CAIR NO X Ozone Season Unit”; 62-210.200(58) “CAIR NO X Unit”; 62-210.200(59) “CAIR Part or CAIR Unit”; 62-210.200(60) “CAIR Program”; 62-210.200(61) “CAIR SO 2 Allowance”; 62-210.200(62) “CAIR SO 2 Trading Program”; 62-210.200(63) “CAIR SO 2 Unit”; and 62-210.200(64) “CAIR Source”; 62-210.200(65). This action also removes the CAIR-related portions of 62-210.200(91) “Commence Operation” (removing paragraph (b)) and 62-210.200(115) “Designated Representative” (removing paragraph (b) and moving paragraph (c) to paragraph (b)).

Through a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on March 28, 2025 (90 FR 14059), EPA proposed to approve these changes because CAIR is no longer operative; EPA previously removed Florida's CAIR rule from the SIP, 2 and the changes therefore would not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment of the NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the Act. 3 The removal of other CAIR-related definitions was also requested as part of this August 15, 2023, SIP submission; however, EPA will address these changes in a separate rulemaking. EPA's rationale for approving the removal or modification of the above definitions is described in the March 28, 2025, NPRM and further discussed in Section II, below. Comments on the NPRM were due on or before April 28, 2025. EPA received four comments on the NPRM. All four comments are available in the docket for this action.

EPA has summarized and responded to the four comments below.

Comment 1: Two of the commenters recommend that EPA disapprove the proposed revisions to the Florida SIP. Among other things, the commenters mention land use development and its impacts. One commenter adds that strict air quality standards and penalties are needed, and one commenter adds that CAIR should be reinstated.

Response 1: EPA disagrees that the Agency should disapprove the SIP revision. EPA is acting on a SIP revision submitted pursuant to the CAA that merely removes unnecessary and obsolete CAIR-related definitions, and CAIR-related portions of certain definitions, from the SIP. The SIP revision is unrelated to land use development and has no impact on air quality. As discussed in the NPRM, in response to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's remand of CAIR, EPA published the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to address the good neighbor provision for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 1997 fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) NAAQS, and the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). Through subsequent litigation over CSAPR, EPA continued to implement CAIR until December 31, 2014. CSAPR became effective on January 1, 2015. EPA determined that CSAPR does not apply to Florida after demonstrating that Florida does not contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other State with respect to the covered NAAQS. See 81 FR 74504, 74506 (October 26, 2016). Because CSAPR replaced CAIR and EPA previously determined that CSAPR does not apply to Florida, neither of these rules have any applicability in Florida today, and CAIR cannot be reinstated in Florida. EPA removed Florida's former CAIR rule—Rule 62-296.470, Implementation of Federal Clean Air Interstate Rule —from the SIP on October 3, 2023. See 88 FR 67963.

Comment 2: The third commenter supports approval of Florida's SIP revision. The commenter suggests that EPA provide a “clear side-by-side list showing which terms are being removed and what's staying the same” and explain if these changes affect how Florida monitors or controls air pollution.

Response 2: Regarding the suggestion for a side-by-side list, it is unclear what the commenter would find helpful. The August 25, 2023, SIP submission identifies what is in the SIP for each rule selected for modification, what changes are requested, and what the SIP would look like if each change is adopted. The NPRM and this notice of final rulemaking also provide a list of each removed and revised definition along with the rule numbers. Except for these removed and revised definitions, the SIP will remain the same.

Regarding an explanation about impacts on the monitoring and control of air pollution, there is no impact because no air quality standards, emission standards, or any other SIP requirements are being relaxed or removed in this action. As discussed above and in the NPRM, Florida's CAIR trading program, as well as the corresponding EPA program, have not been implemented since 2014, and the rules and regulations related to these programs have already been removed or replaced. Therefore, EPA is removing the CAIR-related definitions, and CAIR-related portions of certain definitions, because they are unnecessary and obsolete.

Comment 3: The fourth commenter suggests that EPA should require a supplemental environmental justice analysis; identify how its action complies with the CAA “good neighbor” obligations under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I); establish a periodic SIP review process with Florida to remove obsolete rule text within five years of rule changes; provide community outreach with Florida for SIP revisions removing major regulatory programs; archive references to CAIR-related programs and definitions in EPA's docket system; conduct an impact analysis to ensure the action does not create unintended gaps in Florida's SIP that could weaken enforcement; verify that the action does not conflict with the 2015 ozone and 2020 PM 2.5 NAAQS; confirm that the action does not reduce any public health protections; confirm whether any consultation with Tribal governments was conducted or deemed unnecessary under Executive Order 13175; and acknowledge that “strong SIP clarity supports broader national climate justice goals by ensuring foundational air quality protections remain enforceable.”

Response 3: EPA disagrees with the comment that EPA should require an environmental justice analysis to ensure that this action does not unintentionally impact pollution control standards for vulnerable communities. As discussed above and in the NPRM, the aforementioned definitions and portions of definitions subject to this action no longer function in Florida's SIP because CAIR is no longer operative, and EPA previously removed Florida's CAIR rule from the SIP. No air quality standards, emission standards, or any other SIP requirements are being relaxed or removed in this action. Furthermore, the CAA does not require consideration of environmental justice in SIP actions, and Executive Order 14148—“Initial Rescission of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions” (90 FR 8237; January 28, 2025) revoked past Executive Orders related to environmental justice.

Regarding the comments that EPA should document and publish how this action complies with CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prevent interstate air pollution; EPA should verify that this action does not conflict with obligations under the ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS; and EPA should include a statement that this action does not reduce public health protections, this action has no impact on air quality for the reasons discussed above, and therefore, has no impact on interstate air pollution, the NAAQS, or public health.

Regarding the comments that Florida and EPA should establish a periodic SIP review process, and that EPA should acknowledge that SIP clarity supports national climate justice goals by ensuring foundational air quality protections remain enforceable, these comments are beyond the scope of this action. This action is solely focused on the individual definitional changes in Florida's August 15, 2023, SIP revision.

Regarding public engagement, the CAA and its implementing regulations require states to provide public notice, the opportunity to submit written comments, and the opportunity to request a public hearing on each SIP revision. See CAA section 110(a)(2); 40 CFR 51.102; Appendix V to 40 CFR part 51. Florida's SIP revision met these requirements. Furthermore, EPA provided public notice and the opportunity for comment on this action approving the revision.

Regarding recordkeeping and transparency, the rulemaking docket for this action will remain available at www.regulations.gov. Moreover, EPA provides regular updates to the public on its incorporation by reference of state and local regulations approved into SIPs and maintains a public compilation of the SIP, including a summary of citations for past actions. 4

Regarding an analysis of potential issues with enforceability of the SIP as a result of removing the aforementioned definitions and portions of definitions, there is no impact on enforceability because, as stated in the NPRM and this notice, the definitions and portions of definitions subject to this action no longer function in Florida's SIP because CAIR is no longer operative, and EPA previously removed Florida's CAIR rule from the SIP.

Regarding tribal consultation under Executive Order 13175, as noted in the NPRM, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and in those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249; November 9, 2000).

In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, and as discussed in Section I of this preamble, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Florida Rule 62-210.200, Definitions, state-effective on October 23, 2013 with the exception of the following: 62-210.200(52) “CAIR”; 62-210.200(53) “CAIR NO X Allowance”; 62-210.200(54) “CAIR NO X Annual Trading Program”; 62-210.200(55) “CAIR NO X Ozone Season Allowance”; 62-210.200(56) “CAIR NO X Ozone Season Trading Program”; 62-210.200(57) “CAIR NO X Ozone Season Unit”; 62-210.200(58) “CAIR NO X Unit”; 62-210.200(59) “CAIR Part” or “CAIR Permit”; 62-210.200(60) “CAIR Program”; 62-210.200(61) “CAIR SO 2 Allowance”; 62-210.200(62) “CAIR SO 2 Trading Program”; 62-210.200(63) “CAIR SO 2 Unit”; 62-210.200(64) “CAIR Source”; 62-210.200(65) “CAIR Unit”; 62-210.200(91) “Commence Operation”; and 62-210.200(115) “Designated Representative”. 5 EPA is also incorporating by reference the modified definitions of 62-210.200(79) “Commence Operation” and 62-210.200(103) “Designated Representative,” which became state-effective on July 3, 2018. 6 EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. 7

EPA is approving the August 15, 2023, Florida SIP revision that removes Rules 62-210.200(52) “CAIR”; 62-210.200(53) “CAIR NO X Allowance”; 62-210.200(54) “CAIR NO X Annual Trading Program”; 62-210.200(55) “CAIR NO X Ozone Season Allowance”; 62-210.200(56) “CAIR NO X Ozone Season Trading Program”; 62-210.200(57) “CAIR NO X Ozone Season Unit”; 62-210.200(58) “CAIR NO X Unit”; 62-210.200(59) “CAIR Part” or “CAIR Permit”; 62-210.200(60) “CAIR Program”; 62-210.200(61) “CAIR SO 2 Allowance”; 62-210.200(62) “CAIR SO 2 Trading Program”; 62-210.200(63) “CAIR SO 2 Unit”; 62-210.200(64) “CAIR Source”; and 62-210.200(65) “CAIR Unit”; and modifies Rules 62-210.200(91) “Commence Operation” and 62-210.200(115) “Designated Representative.”

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) because SIP actions are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866;

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and

• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 5, 2025. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:

Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” means the EPA.

The background for this action is discussed in detail in our December 18, 2024, proposal (89 FR 102847) and accompanying Technical Support Document (TSD). In that document, we proposed to approve the Oklahoma MSW landfills plan submitted by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) in accordance with the requirements of section 111(d) of the CAA and to amend 40 CFR part 62, subpart LL, to codify EPA's approval. We proposed to find that the Oklahoma MSW landfills plan, submitted by ODEQ on April 30, 2024, is at least as protective as the Federal requirements provided under the MSW landfills EG, codified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf.

We received one comment regarding our proposal. The comment and response to the comment are provided below. The EPA is finalizing as proposed; no changes have been made as a result of the comment received.

Comment: Cleaning up the environment is a must in any state. With the climate constantly changing this is something that should probably happened a long time ago. Cleaning up the landfills and keeping it to code will show a significant difference in the environment. It is a duty of ours to keep this place clean. Potentially by ignoring this you are putting the public's health at risk. This should be done in a timely manner.

Response: We appreciate the commenter's statements, which provide general support for regulations that reduce landfill emissions and help to protect human health and the environment.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), the Governor of the State of Oklahoma requested approval under Section 10211(a) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005: A Legacy for Users, Public Law 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1937 (August 10, 2005) (“SAFETEA”), to administer in certain areas of Indian country (as defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151) the State's environmental regulatory programs that were previously approved by the EPA outside of Indian country. The State's request excluded certain areas of Indian country further described below.

The EPA has approved Oklahoma's SAFETEA request to administer all of the States's EPA-approved environmental regulatory programs in the requested areas of Indian country. As requested by Oklahoma, EPA's approval under SAFETEA does not include Indian country lands, including rights-of-way running through the same, that: (1) qualify as Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, under 18 U.S.C. 1151(c); (2) are held in trust by the United States on behalf of an individual Indian or Tribe; or (3) are owned in fee by a Tribe, if the Tribe (a) acquired that fee title to such land, or an area that included such land, in accordance with a treaty with the United States to which such Tribe was a party, and (b) never allotted the land to a member or citizen of the Tribe (collectively “excluded Indian country lands”).

The EPA's approval under SAFETEA expressly provided that to the extent the EPA's prior approvals of Oklahoma's environmental programs excluded Indian country, any such exclusions are superseded for the geographic areas of Indian country covered by the EPA's approval of Oklahoma's SAFETEA request. The approval also provided that future revisions or amendments to Oklahoma's approved environmental regulatory programs would extend to the covered areas of Indian country (without any further need for additional requests under SAFETEA).

As explained above, the EPA is approving the CAA section 111(d) state plan submitted by the State of Oklahoma for sources subject to the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfills Emission Guidelines (EG). The plan will apply statewide in Oklahoma, including to all areas of Indian country in the State of Oklahoma other than the excluded Indian country lands as described above, and will cover 57 sources located on privately-owned lands within reservation boundaries.

In this final action, the EPA is amending 40 CFR part 62, subpart LL, to reflect approval of the Oklahoma MSW landfills plan from ODEQ, received on April 30, 2024, in accordance with section 111(d) of the CAA.

In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are finalizing regulatory text that includes the incorporation by reference of Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) Chapter 100, Subchapter 47, adopted February 18, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022, which is part of the CAA section 111(d) Plan applicable to existing MSW landfills subject to the MSW Landfills Emission Guidelines, at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, within ODEQ's jurisdiction in the State of Oklahoma. The regulatory provisions of ODEQ Chapter 100, Subchapter 47 incorporate the MSW Landfills Emissions Guidelines promulgated by the EPA at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, and establish emission standards and compliance times for the control of municipal solid waste landfills, as defined in subpart Cf, that commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction on or before July 17, 2014. The EPA has made and will continue to make ODEQ Chapter 100, Subchapter 47, generally available at the EPA Region 6 office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). They are also available at: https:// www.regulations.gov. This incorporation by reference has been approved by the Office of the Federal Register and the state plan is federally enforceable under the CAA as of the effective date of this final rulemaking.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a CAA section 111(d)/129 submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7411(d); 42 U.S.C. 7429; 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and Cf; and 40 CFR part 62, subpart A. Thus, in reviewing CAA section 111(d)/129 state plan submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Act and implementing regulations. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason:

This action is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and was therefore not subject to a requirement for Executive Order 12866 review.

This action is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) because it does not contain any information collection activities.

This action is certified to not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). This action will approve a state plan pursuant to CAA section 111(d) and will therefore have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.

This action does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

This final action will apply to certain areas of Indian country throughout Oklahoma as discussed in the preamble, and therefore has tribal implications as specified in E.O. 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). However, this action will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. This action will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments because no actions will be required of tribal governments. This action will also not preempt tribal law as no Oklahoma tribe implements a regulatory program under the CAA and thus does not have applicable or related tribal laws. Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation with Indian Tribes (December 7, 2023), the EPA offered consultation (by letter dated December 18, 2024) on our proposed rulemaking to tribal governments that may be affected by this action. No tribes accepted EPA's offer for consultation, and as a result, a consultation did not occur.

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definitions of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. Therefore, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it approves a state program.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. This action is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 62 as follows:

Entities potentially affected by this action are those involved with the production, distribution, and sale of transportation fuels ( e.g., gasoline and diesel fuel) and renewable fuels ( e.g., ethanol, biodiesel, renewable diesel, and biogas). Potentially affected categories include:

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities potentially affected by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. To determine whether your entity would be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR part 80. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Throughout this document the use of “we,” “us,” or “our” is intended to refer to EPA. We use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:

On July 12, 2023, EPA promulgated a rule establishing the RFS volume requirements and percentage standards for 2023-2025 (the “Set 1 Rule”). 1 As part of that rulemaking, EPA projected that 1.09 billion cellulosic Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) would be generated in 2024 and used that volume to establish the 2024 cellulosic biofuel percentage standard of 0.63 percent. 2 On December 12, 2024, EPA proposed a rule to, among other things, partially waive the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement under the RFS program and revise the associated 2024 cellulosic biofuel percentage standard due to a projected shortfall in cellulosic biofuel production in 2024. 3 In this action, EPA is finalizing the proposed partial waiver of the 2024 cellulosic biofuel requirement and one RFS regulatory amendment. EPA proposed several additional amendments to other RFS provisions, a majority of which are not being finalized here but may instead be addressed in a later action.

Based on cellulosic (D3/D7) RIN generation data for 2024, we now project that only 1.01 billion cellulosic RINs were generated in 2024, a shortfall of 0.08 billion RINs from the 1.09 billion RINs projected in the Set 1 Rule. Due to this shortfall and reasons further explained in Sections II and III, we are partially waiving the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement to 1.01 billion RINs (the projected cellulosic RIN generation in 2024) using the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 211(o)(7)(D) “cellulosic waiver authority.” In the proposal, we proposed to utilize the CAA general waiver authority to partially waive the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement and sought comment on the use of the CAA cellulosic waiver authority. After further consideration and in response to comments received, we have decided to partially waive the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement using the CAA cellulosic waiver authority. The cellulosic waiver authority is specific to the cellulosic biofuel standard and its use is mandatory, as described further in Section II.B. Use of the cellulosic waiver authority also triggers the availability of cellulosic waiver credits (CWCs) for 2024 as an additional compliance flexibility for obligated parties. As discussed further in the response to comments (RTC) document, 4 we are not reducing the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume using the general waiver authority.

The supply of advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel in 2024 exceeded the required volumes by a significant margin, despite the shortfall in cellulosic biofuel. Given the surplus of 2024 BBD (D4) and advanced (D5) RINs, we are not reducing the volumes for any of the other categories of renewable fuel ( i.e., biomass-based diesel (BBD), advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel). We are also not making any changes to any of the 2025 RFS standards, which were also finalized in the Set 1 Rule. 5

Finally, we are also replacing the source of data for the wholesale price of gasoline that is used to calculate the price of cellulosic waiver credits (CWCs), as discussed in Section IV, as well as making a minor revision to the biogas provisions of the RFS program, as discussed in Section V.

CAA section 211(o)(2)(B) establishes the framework by which EPA is to establish annual, nationally applicable minimum volume requirements for each of the four categories of renewable fuel that make up the RFS program: cellulosic biofuel, BBD, advanced biofuel, and renewable fuel. CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(i) provided specific applicable volumes for cellulosic biofuel, advanced biofuel, and renewable fuel for each year from 2010 to 2022 and specific applicable volumes for BBD for each year from 2010 to 2012.

For the years beyond those expressly enumerated ( i.e., after 2022 for all categories), CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) provides that applicable volumes are set by EPA in coordination with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Department of Energy (DOE), based on a review of the implementation of the RFS program to date, and that EPA must analyze specific factors ( e.g., the impact of the production and use of renewable fuels on the environment, energy security, the infrastructure of the United States, and job creation). EPA calls this statutory authority to set volumes after 2022 its “set authority.” CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) additionally provides that under the set authority, EPA shall promulgate applicable volumes no later than 14 months prior to the start of the relevant year. 6

This is a summary of the Commission's Third Report and Order in MD Docket No. 24-85, FCC 25-31, adopted June 5, 2025, and released June 9, 2025. The full text of this document is available online at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-31A1.pdf. The full text of this document is also available for inspection and copying during business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities, send an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” The Commission has prepared an Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) concerning the potential impact of the proposed rule and policy changes contained in the Commission's Third Report and Order. The FRFA is set forth in the appendix of the FCC Document https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-31A1.pdf and a summary is included below.

Final Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. The Commission's Third Report and Order does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, the Commission notes that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might further reduce the information collection burdens for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. In the Commission's Third Report and Order, the Commission assessed the effects of its adoption of rules implementing the Part 25 licensing and operating provisions and technical requirements. The Commission finds that such requirements are unlikely to directly impact businesses with fewer than 25 employees.

Congressional Review Act. The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, concurs that this rule is non-major under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will send a copy of the Third Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

1. In the Third Report and Order (Order), the Commission adopts targeted amendments to its existing methodology of assessing regulatory fees for space and earth stations pursuant to section 9 of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended. These changes will be effective for the fiscal year 2025 (FY 2025) assessment and collection of regulatory fees.

2. The Commission began this proceeding after the creation of the Space Bureau in 2023 to ensure that its regulatory fees structure for space and earth station fee payors remain fair, administrable, and sustainable in light of the substantial changes in the space industry in recent years. The Commission is mindful of the significance of ensuring its work is consistent with such overarching goals because the fee schedule adopted for fiscal year 2024 contained sizable increases in the fees assessed to space and earth station fee payors compared to the previous fiscal year.

3. In the Order, the Commission takes two key actions for the current fiscal year to address this situation. First, the Commission assesses regulatory fees on stations once they are authorized, rather than when the stations are certified to be operational, as is currently the case. Second, the Commission splits existing regulatory fee categories for Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit) into two new fee categories: small constellations (fewer than 1000 authorized space stations) and large constellations (1000 authorized space stations or more). These changes will better distinguish between space station regulatees and will more accurately apportion fee burdens among them, which should result in lower per unit regulatory fees for the majority of space station fee payors compared to fiscal year 2024. The Order also adopts an approach that broadens the base of regulatory fee payors to better align fees with the benefits of regulation and that is less subjective than the current system that allocates fees based on the estimated “complexity” of an NGSO system.

4. The changes adopted support the Commission's goal that its regulatory fees are fair, administrable, and sustainable. The Commission views the targeted changes adopted as a step to quickly improve the assessment of regulatory fees for the current fiscal year, but the Commission also recognizes that as the industry develops, and as the Commission seeks to streamline much of the Space Bureau's operations, that additional improvements to the methodology may be proposed in future fiscal years.

5. Section 9 of the Act obligates the Commission to assess and collect regulatory fees each year in an amount that can reasonably be expected to equal the amount of its annual salaries and expenses (S&E) appropriation. Thus, the Commission has no discretion regarding the total amount to be collected in any given fiscal year. In accordance with the statute, each year the Commission proposes adjustments to the prior fee schedule under section 9(c) to “(A) reflect unexpected increases or decreases in the number of units subject to the payment of such fees; and (B) result in the collection of the amount required” by the Commission's annual appropriation. The Commission will also propose amendments to the fee schedule under section 9(d) “if the Commission determines that the schedule requires amendment so that such fees reflect the full-time equivalent number of employees within the bureaus and offices of the Commission, adjusted to take into account factors that are reasonably related to the benefits provided to the payor of the fee by the Commission's activities.” In administering its regulatory fee program, the agency strives to adhere to the goals of ensuring that the program is fair, administrable, and sustainable.

6. The Commission released the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM on March 13, 2024, which initiated an examination and review of regulatory fees for space and earth station payors that are regulated by the new Space Bureau. When the Commission adopted regulatory fees for FY 2023, it noted that it would be the last year for doing so using the nomenclature of certain fee payors being regulated by the International Bureau. The Commission noted that the creation of the Space Bureau and Office of International Affairs could result in changes in the assessment of regulatory fees for space and earth station fee payors resulting from changes in FTEs, due to increased oversight on various relevant industries. The Commission anticipated that the changes in the industry that resulted in the creation of the Space Bureau would likely also result in changes in the relative FTE burdens between and among space and earth station fee payors. Accordingly, the Commission sought comment in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM on a range of proposed changes related to the assessment of regulatory fees for space and earth stations under its existing regulatory fee methodology, as well as under a proposed alternative methodology for assessing space station regulatory fees.

7. In June 2024, the Commission adopted an order in this proceeding that amended the methodology used to calculate regulatory fees for small satellites by no longer calculating it as a percentage of the NGSO “less complex” and “other” space station fee categories. Instead, the Commission set the regulatory fee for “Space Stations (per license/call sign in non-geostationary orbit) (47 CFR part 25) (Small Satellite)” for FY 2024 at the level set for FY 2023 ($12,215), with annual adjustments thereafter to reflect the percentage change in the FCC appropriation, unit count, and FTE allocation percentage from the previous fiscal year. It also determined to assess regulatory fees for space stations that are principally used for Rendezvous & Proximity Operations (RPO) or On-Orbit Servicing (OOS), including Orbit Transfer Vehicles (OTV), using the existing fee category for “small satellites” on an interim basis until the Commission can develop more experience in how these space stations will be regulated.

8. In September 2024, the Commission adopted a Second Report and Order in this proceeding that revised the allocation of space station regulatory fees using the existing methodology for calculating their proportional share of regulatory fees from 80% of space station regulatory fees being allocated to GSO space station fee payors and 20% of the space station regulatory fees being allocated to NGSO space station fee payors to 60% of space station regulatory fees being allocated to GSO space station payors and 40% to NGSO space station payors (that is, changing from an “80/20 GSO/NGSO split” to a “60/40 GSO/NGSO split”). It also adopted a re-apportionment of regulatory fees between earth and space station payors based on the percentage of direct FTEs involved in the licensing and regulation of each category.

9. The Commission did not act on the remaining proposals that were made in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM. It instead concluded that action on these issues may benefit from further consideration, and stated that further comment on these remaining proposals would be sought in a further notice of proposed rulemaking. In February 2025, the Commission released a further notice in this proceeding (Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees FNPRM) that sought comment on the proposals made in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM that were not adopted for FY 2024. Those proposals include assessing regulatory fees on authorized, but not operational, space and earth stations; using an alternative methodology for assessing space station regulatory fees; establishing tiers within existing NGSO space station fee categories based on the number of space stations in the system; and creating new categories of earth station regulatory fees.

10. Comments in response to the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees FNPRM were due on March 27, 2025, and replies were due on April 11, 2025. The Commission received 19 comments and 17 reply comments. In addition, several entities made presentations to the Commission pursuant to its rules governing ex parte communications.

11. The Commission now amends its existing methodology for assessing regulatory fees for space and earth stations by (1) assessing regulatory fees based on when stations were authorized, rather than when the stations are certified to be operational, as is currently the case, and (2) eliminating the existing regulatory fee categories for “Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)—Less Complex” and “Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)—Other” and creating new fee categories for “Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)—Small Constellations (fewer than 1000 authorized space stations)” and “Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)—Large Constellations (1000 authorized space stations or more).” The Commission adopts these changes to become effective for fiscal year 2025. The Commission declines at this time to adopt the alternative methodology to remove the distinction between geostationary and non-geostationary space stations and to assess space and earth station regulatory fees based on a common unit of space station fees that was put forth in this proceeding, as well as other suggestions to change its regulatory fee methodologies for space and earth stations made by commenters. The Commission also makes no changes at this time to the existing methodology for assessing regulatory fees for earth stations.

12. As explained above, the Commission commenced this proceeding in 2024 to focus on space and earth station regulatory fees. In implementing its statutory authority, the Commission considers the adoption of a new regulatory fee category or a change in an existing regulatory fee category only when the Commission develops a sufficient basis for doing so under Section 9 ensuring that its actions are consistent with the overarching goal that its regulatory fees are fair, administrable, and sustainable. These goals must work within the explicit statutory requirements of section 9 that the Commission collect fees by determining “the full-time equivalent number of employees” performing specified activities in the Bureaus and Offices, and they are intended to guide adjustments that the Commission must make from time to time to its regulatory fee assessments. As discussed below, the Commission finds that it can better achieve these statutory requirements and overarching goals by adopting targeted changes to its existing fee methodology than by adopting an entirely new regulatory fee methodology.

13. For fiscal year 2025, the Commission continues to use the Commission's existing methodology, with targeted changes identified below, to assess the regulatory fees for Space Bureau fee payors. Accordingly, the Commission declines at this time to adopt the alternative fee methodology set forth in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM, and for which additional comment was sought in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees FNPRM.

14. The Commission is acutely aware of the financial impact of regulatory fees, particularly on smaller and less capitalized space companies. Accordingly, the Commission is presently focused on reducing the total fee burden to be divided among regulated entities by making the Space Bureau's operations more efficient. The Commission finds that continued use of the existing methodology will maintain stability and prevent unnecessary disruption while broader reforms are ongoing. At the same time, targeted changes to the existing methodology will substantially reduce the fee burden for a large class of payors.

15. Central to the alternative methodology is a common initial unit of regulatory fee payment for all space stations, regardless of which orbit they are designed to operate in, and the elimination of all separate fee categories for GSO and NGSO space stations, except for the fee category for Space Stations (per license/call sign) (Small Satellite), which would be retained in its existing form. The alternative methodology would create a single space station fee category for “Space Stations (Per Call Sign in Geostationary Orbit or Per System in Non-Geostationary Orbit).” The category would be tiered, with a single GSO space station or a NGSO system with up to 100 authorized space stations constituting this initial tier and being counted as one unit for assessment of space station regulatory fees. Additional tiers would be created to account for NGSO systems with more than 100 authorized space stations, for example 500 or 1000 space stations per NGSO system per additional tier. Each tier would be counted as an additional unit for assessment of space station regulatory fees. The total number of units (initial and additional units) would be added together and the total space station allocation of the Space Bureau share would be evenly divided among the total number of units, resulting in a per unit regulatory fee for the fiscal year.

16. The Commission emphasizes that its decision not to adopt the alternative methodology at this time does not foreclose consideration of it (or a variation of it) in a future proceeding. As the Commission has observed, the alternative methodology could achieve its goals of making its Space Bureau regulatory fees fair, administrable, and sustainable. Furthermore, comments received in response to the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees FNPRM broadly supported adoption of the alternative methodology as the preferred option for amending the methodology for assessing space station regulatory fees. Nonetheless, as the Commission streamlines and modernizes the Space Bureau's licensing and related activities, there are likely to be corresponding changes to FTE burdens related to oversight of Space Bureau regulatory fee payors. Consequently, the Commission finds that now is not the time to adopt a wholly new methodology for space station regulatory fees. Rather, the Commission finds that the overarching goals of fair, administrable, and sustainable regulatory fees can equally be achieved by targeted changes to the existing methodology.

17. The Commission observes that the changes in the space industry that led to the creation of the Space Bureau and the Commission's re-examination of space and earth station regulatory fees are still ongoing. The Commission is accordingly mindful that any wholesale departure from its existing methodology at this juncture runs significant the risk of adopting a new fee methodology that still reflects past assumptions about licensing and regulation of space and earth stations. For example, the alternative methodology remains committed to GSO space stations as the “standard” unit for assessing space station regulatory fees, with fees for NGSO systems expressed in terms of equivalence to a GSO space station. It is unclear whether this is a suitable foundation on which to build a new regulatory fee structure. Furthermore, the very nature of GSO space stations is undergoing change with the increasing availability of “small GSO” space stations, which raise questions about whether the same level of oversight is needed to license and regulate as traditional, large GSO space stations upon which the alternative methodology relies. Thus, the Commission declines to adopt an entirely new regulatory fee methodology at this time while these substantial changes in the space industry are still ongoing.

18. As the Commission has redoubled its efforts in recent months to simplify and modernize its licensing and related operations, the Commission expects changes in the FTE burden will be needed for oversight of Space Bureau regulatory fee payors. The Commission also agrees with comments that it should not undertake a major overhaul of its space and earth station regulatory fee methodologies in light of the ongoing modernization efforts. Since the fiscal year ends on September 30, these modernization efforts may not be completed in time to impact the FTE burden of oversight or otherwise relate to the statutory framework for the exercise of its regulatory fee assessment for fiscal year 2025. The Commission, however, expects these efforts to bear fruit in the near future and, assuming so, will consider them in relevant future fiscal years as they relate to its statutory authority to assess and collect regulatory fees.

19. For all these reasons, the Commission determines that the best course during these changing times is to focus on the core responsibilities that the Commission undertakes during its regulatory fee proceedings: to follow the requirements set forth in section 9 of Act, with the overarching goals of making its regulatory fees fair, administrable, and sustainable. For the reasons set forth below, the Commission finds that it can meet these requirements and goals with targeted amendments to its existing space and earth station regulatory fee methodology. Since the Commission can do this, while preserving the flexibility to make future targeted amendments in the future, the Commission shall follow that course.

20. Overview. The Commission amends its current methodology for assessing regulatory fees for space and earth station regulatees from assessing fees only after notification that the station is operational to assessing fees when the station has received a license or grant of market access from the Commission. In past years, regulatory fees for space stations were assessed only when the space stations are certified by their operator to be operational. An earth station payor was required to pay regulatory fees only after it had certified that the earth station's construction was complete, but in the rare instances in which a license limits an earth station's operational authority to a particular satellite system, the fee was not due until the first satellite of the related system becomes operational within the meaning of the Commission's rules. The Commission finds, however, that the objectives of section 9 of the Act would be better met by assessing regulatory fees once a space or earth station is licensed or authorized, rather than, as now, waiting until a space or earth station becomes operational.

21. As the Commission has previously observed, significant FTE burdens are involved with the licensing of space and earth stations, even before a station becomes operational. A licensee or grantee already benefits from the FTE levels necessary to review and grant the application for future operations of the station, as well as from the FTE levels used to protect the benefits conferred by the grant of a license or of U.S. market access, such as use of spectrum and orbital resources and protection from interference, which convey upon issuance of the license or grant. Moreover, given the bespoke nature of many satellite systems, Space Bureau staff expertise is used by the industry before, during, and after an application (including modifications thereof) or petitions for rulemaking are filed. In such situations, fee payors with systems that become operational earlier than other licensed systems bear the entire fee burden of regulatory work done on behalf of all regulated systems. Furthermore, if an authorized space station never becomes operational, then the licensee would never be subject to regulatory fees to recover the FTE burdens associated with regulating such space stations, and other licensees with operational satellites must bear the costs associated with space stations that were authorized, but never become operational. In addition, assessing regulatory fees on authorized, not just operational stations, broadens the base of regulatory fee payors, spreading the recovery of fees from all licensees who benefit from the Space Bureau's licensing and regulatory activities, and potentially lowering the per unit regulatory fee burden by increasing the number of units on which fees are assessed.

22. Comments nearly unanimously support assessing regulatory fees when space and earth stations are authorized, rather than when they are operational, based on the observations previously made in the proceeding. Only two objections were made to the proposal: one asking not to apply regulatory fees to authorized, but not yet operational, earth stations; and one arguing that the Commission should continue its practice of assessing regulatory fees solely on operational stations, absent explicit authority from Congress to do otherwise. Regarding the former, the Commission sees no reason to treat earth stations differently from space stations, because significant FTE burdens are involved with the licensing of both prior to becoming operational, and both benefit from FTE burdens used to protect the benefit conferred by the authorization itself. As to the latter objection, Congress has explicitly directed the Commission to recover its annual S&E appropriation through regulatory fees, and the S&E appropriation includes funding for FTE burdens spent reviewing and granting applications, which is accrued regardless of when a station becomes operational. Congress has also already explicitly provided the Commission authority, in section 9(d) of the Act, to adjust its regulatory fees by rule if it determines that the schedule of fees requires amendment, and such adjustment by rule is what is being adopted in this proceeding. Section 9 does not limit the assessment of regulatory fees to operational stations, and Congress affirmatively deleted, as obsolete, the prior portion of section 9 that was the basis for the Commission's previous decision to assess regulatory fees only on operational space stations. Accordingly, the assessment of regulatory fees on authorized stations is wholly within the explicit authority given by Congress and is consistent with section 9 of the Act.

23. Consistent with past practice and for purposes of fiscal year 2025, the Commission will continue, however, to assess regulatory fees on station licenses and market access grants as of the start of the fiscal year, i.e. October 1, 2024. Although there is support on the record for alternative methods for assessing regulatory fees on any space station authorized during the fiscal year. At this time, the Commission finds that it is not administrable to assess fees on space stations authorized at any point during the fiscal year. One proposal in the record is to assess regulatory fees on authorized space and earth stations regardless of when in the fiscal year an authorization is granted, and to “pro rate” the assessed fee based on the number of calendar days or fiscal quarters that the station has been authorized in the fiscal year. Because in most cases the Commission assesses regulatory fees based on FTE share of the category of fee payors divided by the number of units of fee payors, pro-rated regulatory fees would require the Commission to take into account partial units, which would introduce complexity into the calculation without clear benefit. Such a result would not serve the Commission's goal of ensuring that its fees are administrable. Accordingly, the Commission will continue to assess regulatory fees on space and earth stations that are authorized as of the start of the fiscal year.

24. Similarly, the Commission will continue the practice of providing a list of all space stations that are eligible to be assessed regulatory fees in an appendix to the annual notice of proposed rulemaking for the assessment and collection of regulatory fee for the fiscal year. Comments widely support the utility of this practice, and the Commission agrees that it has been an efficient method of providing notice and awareness of which fee payors are subject to regulatory fees for the fiscal year. The Commission declines to rely instead on the Space Bureau's Approved Space Station List for notice and awareness of which space stations are subject to regulatory fees for the fiscal year. The Commission finds that an appendix to the annual notice of proposed rulemaking will better serve its goal of providing space stations with notice of regulatory fees.

25. The Commission declines to adopt exceptions or other carve-outs to assessing fees on all authorized space and earth stations, regardless of their operational status. As an initial matter, the Commission lacks the authority to exempt whole categories of fee payors from regulatory fees, since the decision to exempt whole categories of fee payors resides with Congress under section 9 of the Act. The Commission also finds that broadening the base to include authorized, but not operational, stations more accurately allocates the FTE burdens and result in lower per unit regulatory fees for most space and earth station operators. In any event, the rationales for assessing fees on stations when they are authorized remain applicable, even in the circumstances discussed below where proposals were made to exempt or carve out certain categories of stations that are authorized, but are non-operational or conduct solely non-revenue producing operations. Each are discussed in turn.

26. Pre-operational stations. The Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fee FNPRM sought comment on whether to adopt new, separate fee categories for space and earth stations that are authorized, but not fully operational, based on a suggestion that the FTE burdens associated with licensing and oversight of authorized, but non-operational, stations are less than those associated with operational stations. After review of the record, the Commission affirms the prior tentative conclusion that substantial FTE burdens in the Space Bureau are dedicated to the review and action on space and earth station applications, and that entities with authorized, but not yet operational stations, still benefit from these burdens, as well as from a wide-range of regulatory benefits, utilizing both direct and indirect FTEs. In addition, the record did not provide a sufficient basis for differentiating FTE burdens for authorized, but not yet operational, stations, and the Commission agrees with comments that adopting separate fees for such stations would complicate the regulatory fee regime without clear benefit.

27. Post-operational and TT&C-only space stations. The Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fee FNPRM sought comment on whether it is feasible to assess a separate category of annual regulatory fees for space stations that remain authorized solely to conduct telemetry, tracking, and command (TT&C) operations, for example in order to complete end-of-life disposal plans pursuant to orbital debris mitigation plans approved by the Commission as part of the authorization process. Most of the parties who commented on the proposal supported the concept of continuing to not assess fees, or to assess a lower fee, for non-operational, “TT&C-only” space stations, although some comments oppose any different treatment of authorized space stations. No party provided any information as to the feasibility of a separate fee or how such a fee should be calculated.

28. The Commission appreciates but remains unconvinced by arguments to not assess regulatory fees on space stations solely for TT&C operations or space stations solely conducting TT&C operations necessary to complete end-of-life disposal plans. In both instances, regulatory fees may be assessed when the space station is not intended to generate revenue from its authorized communications, or is no longer generating revenue from them. Indeed, the Commission has previously held that a non-U.S. licensed space station that communicates with a U.S.-licensed earth station solely for TT&C purposes does not fall within the category of a non-U.S. licensed space station with access to the U.S. market for regulatory fee purposes. It has also found that regulatory fees are not assessed on space stations that have ceased operations and are authorized solely for TT&C to conduct experimental communications, or to conduct end-of-life disposal maneuvers.

29. The Commission's prior precedent, however, is inapplicable to a fee structure that assesses fees on authorized stations, such as the one adopted in the Order. The Commission previously declined to assess fees for TT&C-only space stations during the time it limited regulatory fees to operational stations. Applying that exclusion to a fee structure that assesses fees on authorized stations is inconsistent with the rationale for adopting the new methodology and will undermine the purposes underlying it, including widening the base of regulatory fee payors. The Commission has previously recognized that assessing regulatory fees on non-operational stations has the potential to impose costs and create financial risk. Nonetheless, the Commission tentatively concluded that these concerns do not outweigh the need to assess regulatory fees on regulatees of the same class who benefit from its FTE efforts, which the Commission affirms in the Order in adopting the proposal to assess fees on authorized space and earth stations, even before such stations become operational. As stated above, the objectives of section 9 of the Act would be better met by assessing regulatory fees once a space or earth station is licensed or authorized because significant FTE burdens are involved with the licensing of space and earth stations, even before a station becomes operational, and because Space Bureau staff expertise is utilized by the industry before, during, and after an application (including modifications thereof) is filed. These reasons also apply to space and earth stations that are used solely for TT&C, or are being used for TT&C solely for post-mission disposal purposes. These TT&C communications are still radiocommunications authorized by the Commission and they continue to be subject to regulatory oversight by the Commission. This is true even in instances of TT&C solely for post-mission disposal, due to Commission oversight of compliance with the terms of their orbital debris mitigation plans. Accordingly, there is not a sufficient basis to find that regulatory fees should not be assessed on TT&C only space stations, or stations that are no longer operational, under the amended methodology adopted in the Order.

30. Furthermore, excluding TT&C-only space stations may be inequitable for other reasons. As an example, the Commission is considering how to modify its rules to better accommodate the licensing and regulatory oversight of space stations that are used primarily in support of in-space servicing, assembly, and manufacturing (ISAM), including how to assess regulatory fees for such stations. Because these stations often are authorized to use radiocommunications solely for TT&C, without any other revenue-producing radiocommunication service being provided, categorically exempting TT&C-only space stations from regulatory fees now could prematurely exclude such stations wholly from regulatory fee assessments, even though such stations benefit from Commission FTEs as part of their licensing and regulatory oversight. In addition, exempting non-U.S. licensed space stations from regulatory fee assessments when communications with U.S.-licensed earth stations are solely for TT&C purposes would provide non-U.S. licensed space stations with an unfair advantage, unless the Commission were to do the same for all U.S.-licensed space stations, which the Commission does not find best serves the objectives of section 9 of the Act for the reasons stated above.

31. To facilitate the transition to the amended methodology, however, the Commission will not assess regulatory fees on authorized space stations that have already commenced post-mission disposal plans as of the release date of the Order, provided that the authorized space stations are conducting TT&C solely for the purpose of executing approved post-mission disposal plans. Comments suggest that there is merit to assessing regulatory fees for space stations that have reached the end of life, but that such fees should apply prospectively. The Commission agrees that prospective application is appropriate in this limited instance, since it is highly unlikely that operators already undertaking disposal plans are able to adjust their plans and such operators are few in number.

32. The Commission also expects to examine again in a future proceeding whether it is feasible to ascertain whether FTE burdens ascribed to the licensing and regulatory oversight of space stations authorized solely for TT&C communications are lower, such that a new, separate fee category might be able to be created for such stations. At this time, however, the Commission does not have sufficient record to reach a determination on this issue.

33. Stations with multiple authorizations and RPO/OOS stations. The Commission sought comment on a proposal to assess regulatory fees in instances where there are separately identifiable space station authorizations, but which the space stations have not been considered to be separably operational and therefore have not been subject to separate regulatory fees. For example, a GSO satellite may operate in certain frequency bands under a license by the Commission and may communicate with U.S.-licensed space stations in other frequency bands pursuant to a grant of U.S. market access. Likewise, a NGSO space station fee payor may operate some space stations in its system under a U.S. license and may operate other space stations under a grant of U.S. market access. In the past, the space station fee payor has been assessed only a single regulatory fee, rather than one for each authorization or grant of market access. The Commission also previously tentatively concluded that a space station attached to a GSO space station as part of RPO or OOS operations would not be assessed fees separate from, and in addition to, any regulatory fees assessed on the space station that is being serviced or that is having its mission extended. The premise underlying the prior tentative conclusion was that the RPO or OOS space station is operating as part of an existing GSO space station, rather than as a separate operational space station, and therefore the regulatory fee burden for the RPO or OOS space station would be included in the fee collected from the GSO space station fee payor. Upon further consideration, the Commission reversed its position and tentatively concluded that the requirements and purpose of section 9 of the Act would be better met by separately assessing regulatory fees on such attached RPO or OOS space stations.

34. Comments in this proceeding support continuing not assessing separate regulatory fees for the same satellite, even in circumstances where there are multiple space station authorizations and call signs. No party commented on the Commission's tentative conclusion regarding assessing regulatory fees on RPO and OOS space stations, regardless of whether they are attached to another station or not.

35. The Commission disagrees with commenters' that argue that the Commission should continue to assess only a single regulatory fee in instances where there are separately identifiable space station authorizations for the same satellite and where existing Commission rules do not permit the consolidation of authorizations after grant. The commenters' arguments for an exception are premised on the nature of the operations of the space station authorizations, but the Commission has determined that operational status is no longer the appropriate basis for determining whether to assess regulatory fees. In the case of a satellite that is in part U.S.-licensed, and is in part non-U.S. licensed, there are separate and distinct licenses and grants, each evidenced by a separate call sign, often to different licensees/grantees, which cannot be consolidated under the Commission's existing rules into a single call sign. This is also true of an RPO or OOS space station, even if it is attached to another space station for servicing. A single regulatory fee might make sense if the Commission's fees were intended to recover solely the FTEs associated with regulatory oversight of a satellite's operations, but section 9 of the Act requires the Commission to recover all aspects of its licensing and regulatory functions—before, during, and after authorization. Where there are separate station authorizations for a single satellite, evidenced by separate call signs, the Commission finds it is more in line with Congress's intent to assess separate regulatory fees to recover the separate FTE burdens associated with each authorization. This is also true for small satellites or spacecrafts, which the Commission has similarly determined should be assessed regulatory fees per license or call sign, rather than per system. Accordingly, the Commission will assess regulatory fees based on separate license or grant of market access in these cases, as evidenced by separate call signs. To the extent that comments argue that Commission rules do not allow them to combine authorizations or call signs for separate space stations because these authorizations are not for a single NGSO system, the Commission finds that it is more appropriate to address this situation through the Space Bureau's attempts to modernize the licensing and regulation of these new types of space services before seeking changes to the regulatory fee methodology.

36. For NGSO space stations that are not within the category of small satellites or spacecraft, the Commission has previously determined that licensing and assessment of regulatory fees is appropriate per system of NGSO space stations, rather than per call sign. This in part is due to the nature of NGSO space stations operating as constellations rather than individual satellites, and in part due to the nature of how NGSO space stations are licensed, using processing rounds, which may necessitate, or at least provide strong incentives for, applicants filing for new frequency bands for the use in the same constellation as new applications that are automatically assigned new call signs by the Commission's electronic filing system, International Communications Filing System (ICFS). Generally, NGSO licenses are able to consolidate these separate call signs under a single call sign post-authorization if they are part of a single system. This consolidation of authorizations and call signs is not possible, however, for a system that includes both U.S.-licensed space stations and non-U.S. licensed space stations, since the system would consist of two distinct forms of authorization: one is a license to a Commission-licensed space station and the other is a grant of market access for a communications between a non-U.S. licensed space station and U.S.-licensed earth stations.

37. The Commission observes that, in instances where a NGSO system has some space stations licensed by the U.S., and some space stations licensed by another administration, there is reason to require separate regulatory fees based on the reasoning above that there are separate and distinct licenses and grants, each evidenced by a separate call sign, often to different licensees/grantees. The Commission declines, however, to change its existing policy at this time, since the record to date does not provide sufficient information to assess fully the possible impacts of a change from assessing fees on NGSO space stations as “systems,” rather than by authorizations evidenced by separate call signs, particularly when calculating whether a system would be categorized as a small or large constellation under the amended fee categories adopted in the Order.

38. Co-located stations and on-orbit spares. The Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fee FNPRM sought comment on whether regulatory fees should be assessed on GSO space stations that are co-located with other GSO space stations or that serve as non-operational “on-orbit spares” for other operational GSO space stations. Such stations are not currently considered to be separably operational and have not been assessed regulatory fees for this reason. The Commission has observed, however, that separable direct FTEs are utilized to license and regulate these space stations. Comments largely support the continuation of not assessing regulatory fees on on-orbit spares and GSO space stations co-located with another GSO space station, although support is not universal.

39. The Commission finds that the goals of section 9 are not served by continuing to not assess regulatory fees on space stations simply because they are co-located with other operational space stations or serve as on-orbit spares to other operational space stations. The premise that underlies both instances is that the space stations were not considered to be separately operational, but the Commission has determined that operational status is no longer the appropriate basis for determining whether to assess regulatory fees. As is the case for stations with multiple authorizations, a single regulatory fee would make sense if the Commission's fees were intended to recover solely the regulatory oversight of satellite's operations, but section 9 of the Act requires the Commission to recover all aspects of its licensing and regulatory functions—before, during, and after authorization. In the case of co-located or on-orbit spare space stations, the amount of FTE resources required to license these space stations does not appear to be substantially different from that required to license other space stations, since staff must still evaluate the applications to determine compliance with the Commission's rules and policies, and such space stations receive licenses that confer benefits to the licensees. Accordingly, where there are separate station authorizations for co-located space stations or on-orbit spare space stations, evidenced by separate call signs, the Commission finds it is more in line with Congress's intent to assess separate regulatory fees to recover the separate FTE burdens associated with each authorization.

40. Under the current system, 80% of the share of NGSO space station fees are allocated to the NGSO—Other fee category and 20% to the NGSO—Less Complex fee category, after subtracting a pro rata amount of the total fees assessed for NGSO—Small Satellites from each category. These allocated fees are then divided equally among the number of units in each category. For fiscal year 2024, fee payors in the NGSO—Other fee category were assessed fees of $964,200 per unit, regardless of the number of space stations authorized for each fee payor. Payors in the NGSO—Less Complex fee category were assessed per unit fees of $441,925, also regardless of the number of space stations authorized for each fee payor. NGSO space station payors have previously argued that this “one fee fits all” assessment is unfair, as it assesses the same regulatory fee on an NGSO system consisting of 100 space stations as the fee assessed for an NGSO system consisting of potentially 10,000 or more space stations.

41. The Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees FNPRM sought comment on two proposals to address this shortcoming. First, it sought comment on a proposal to create sub-categories within the existing NGSO—Other fee category for small and large constellations of NGSO space stations, based on the number of authorized space stations in a system. Second, it sought comment on whether to eliminate the existing NGSO—Less Complex fee category and assess fees on all NGSO space stations (other than small satellites) as small or large constellations or, alternatively, to create sub-categories of small and large constellations within the NGSO—Less Complex category.

42. The Commission finds that the overarching goals of making its regulatory fee structure fair, administrable, and sustainable would be met by assessing regulatory fees on all NGSO space stations (other than those eligible for paying regulatory fees under the small satellites category) within new fee categories of NGSO—Small Constellations (fewer than 1000 authorized space stations) and NGSO—Large Constellations (1000 authorized space stations or more) and by eliminating the NGSO—Less Complex category entirely. Furthermore, the Commission will allocate fees between small and large constellations on a 60/40 basis, that is, 60% of NGSO space station fees would be allocated to small constellations and 40% to large constellations. As with its existing approach, the Commission will subtract small satellite fees on a pro rata basis between small and large constellations.

43. First, the new methodology is fair because creation of separate fee categories for small and large constellations recognizes that NGSO space station constellations with more authorized space stations are likely to benefit more from the Commission's licensing and regulatory efforts than constellations with substantially fewer authorized space stations. NGSO systems with a larger number of authorized space stations provide service in a larger geographic area (usually globally) and provide more transmission capacity in order to provide higher-data rate, two-way connectivity. In addition, a larger number of earth stations are needed to support global, high-data rate two-way connectivity, and larger spectrum authorizations are required to provide the spectrum bandwidth needed for the desired services. The Commission finds it reasonable that such constellations benefit more from FTE burdens than smaller constellations and should be assessed greater regulatory fees, per unit.

44. The adoption of fee categories for small and large constellations also ensures that the additional benefit received by large NGSO constellations is not linearly related to the number of authorized space stations. This new methodology will account for diminishing amounts of FTE burdens required to license and regulate these systems as the number of authorized space stations grows beyond a certain size. In the Commission's experience, the Commission finds that once an operator has 1000 or more authorized space stations, it is reasonably distinguishable from smaller constellations in terms of the FTE benefits received and can be separated into a category with similar systems for regulatory fee purposes. Once it is in this separate category, the regulatory fees will not increase further based on the number of authorized space stations. Thus, the Commission will mitigate the adoption of exceptionally high fees for any one particular fee payor when such fees may not correlate reasonably to the FTE benefits accrued. The majority of commenters also support the division between small and large constellations at 1000 or more authorized space stations.

45. Second, the Commission finds that this methodology is administrable. Using the number of authorized space stations in an NGSO system to allocate FTE burdens is simpler than the current system of using complexity as a proxy for FTE burdens. The number of space stations authorized for a NGSO system is an objective measure and is readily available as part of the space station license or grant of market access. The Commission finds this is a more administrable metric than space station features such as mass that could rely on data that may not be required by, or contained in, its licensing processes, or that require a multi-element accounting system, without a clear correlation between such feature and FTE burdens.

46. This new methodology will also lessen the probability of sudden or unpredictable swings in the number of units within the fee category. Using the number of authorized space stations will help avoid unpredictable and rapid shifts in fee rates from one year to the next, and is consistent with prior Commission use of this metric as the basis for its regulatory fees. Also, by eliminating the separate fee category for NGSO—Less Complex, all NGSO space stations (other than small satellites) will be placed into two tiers, which will result in a greater number of fee payors per tier. In turn, this lessens the potential for rapid and unpredictable changes in fees from year to year when a single fee payor in each tier is added or removed. In contrast, use of more than two fee tiers to account for more granular distinctions in the size of NGSO space station systems would be susceptible to rapid shifts in regulatory fees for all space station payors if there is a significant reduction in the number of authorized GSO space stations from one year to the next because the number of authorized GSO space stations accounts for a large percentage of total units. This would also require a comparison of the FTE burdens for each tier with those required for a single GSO space station.

47. Third, the Commission finds that the amended methodology adopted in the Order is sustainable because the fee system will have flexibility to adapt to changes in technologies. Notably, the amended methodology is not defined by technology or services provided, but rather solely by the number of authorized space stations in an NGSO system. If technologies and the space industry change, as the Commission expects that they will, the number of authorized space stations in an NGSO system is a broad metric for assessing FTE burdens and is likely to remain relevant. In the event that further amendments are needed to adjust the methodology to changes in technologies, the methodology adopted in the Order preserves the ability to do so.

48. The Commission also finds that allocating a larger share to small constellations on a 60/40 basis between small and large constellations, respectively, is appropriate at this time and particularly sustainable as it relates to smaller constellations. Currently, there are substantially more small NGSO constellations than large NGSO constellations—an estimated 24 NGSO small constellations as compared to three NGSO large constellations. Going forward, the Commission anticipates that there will be greater growth in the number of authorized small constellations due to the considerable additional resources needed to launch and operate NGSO systems with a thousand or more space stations. Given this disparity in numbers, the Commission finds that it is reasonable that more than half of the FTE benefits realized by NGSO space station systems at this time are attributable to small constellations, in aggregate. The 60/40 split should result in much lower regulatory fees for small constellations on a per unit basis compared with large constellations, while also recognizing that small constellations currently take up more than 50% of the FTE burdens used for the licensing and regulation of NGSO space stations.

49. The Commission makes one additional amendment to the methodology used to assess space station regulatory fees necessitated by the amendments adopted in the Order: instead of subtracting the amount of regulatory fees anticipated to be collected from small satellites on a pro rata basis between NGSO—Less Complex and NGSO—Other, the Commission will instead subtract small satellite fees on a pro rata basis between small and large constellations. This maintains the existing approach, but makes changes to reflect the elimination of the NGSO—Less Complex fee category and creation of the NGSO small and large constellation fee categories.

50. The Commission clarifies that fees will be assessed based on the total number of authorized space stations for an NGSO system, not just the number of space stations authorized to be simultaneously operating. Comments observe that the appendices in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees FNPRM listed the number of authorized space stations for some systems based on the total number of space stations authorized over the license term, whereas for some systems the number was based on the total number of simultaneously-operating space stations that were authorized. Comments urge consistency in determining which space stations are authorized for regulatory fee purposes and advocate calculating fees based on the number of space stations authorized to be operational simultaneously, rather than authorized over the license term.

51. Although the Commission finds that this distinction is less relevant under the methodology adopted in the Order than under the alternative methodology that the Commission is not adopting, the Commission clarifies that fees will be assessed based on the total number of authorized space stations for an NGSO system, not just the number of space stations authorized to be simultaneously operating. The methodology adopted no longer relies on operational status of a space station for assessing regulatory fees, so it would be inconsistent to use operational status, rather than authorized status, as a basis for assessing regulatory fees. Although comments stress that assessing fees solely on space stations that are authorized to be simultaneously-operating would be consistent with the Commission's decision not to assess regulatory fees on on-orbit spares or co-located space stations that were not considered to be separably operable, such space stations are subject to regulatory fees under the amended methodology adopted. Furthermore, the Commission does not find that the record supports contentions that it is solely the operational status of the space stations that goes into assessing the FTE burdens attributable to the category of regulatory fees. As observed above, its regulatory fees are intended to recover the costs of licensing and regulation before, during, and after operations, so limiting regulatory fees to operational stations does not best serve the purpose of section 9 of the Act.

52. The Commission finds that alternative proposals for assessing regulatory fees on NGSO space stations are more complicated to administer than the methodology the Commission adopts in the Order. The Commission declines to assess regulatory fees based on the number of authorizations that a fee payor holds. Such a methodology would be more complex to administer than the one the Commission adopts, and the record lacks specifics as to how to implement such a system. The Commission also declines to adopt a “risk-informed” methodology, which would inject policy decisions regarding the regulation of space stations that are not suitable for resolution in regulatory fee proceedings to assess regulatory fees.

53. The Commission finds that the goals of this proceeding are best served by adopting, at this time, two categories for NGSO space stations, small and large constellations, based on a dividing line of 1000 authorized space stations, rather than multiple categories based on different numbers of authorized space stations, as suggested by some comments. Adopting more than two tiers or categories of NGSO space station fees based on alternative number of authorized space stations is less administrable than the amended methodology the Commission adopts. Dividing NGSO space station systems into many tiers will result in a smaller number of fee payors per tier, which in turn has the potential to result in rapid and unpredictable changes in fees from year to year, if a single fee payor in each tier is added or removed. Simply put, having fee categories with larger number of units per categories is more administrable, all things being equal, as a single dividing line is less complex to administer and is likely to be more stable over time. The majority of comments support this approach, at least in the event that the alternative methodology is not adopted.

54. The Commission also declines at this time to adopt a fee category for “truly small” NGSO systems with “well under” 100 authorized space stations. Although comments argue that their systems are closer in kind to NGSO systems authorized under the Commission's small satellite rules and should be assessed much lower regulatory fee comparable to those assessed to those systems, the Commission observes that the lower regulatory fees assessed for small satellites is based on their ability to meet certain criteria for their system, which permits streamlined processing of these applications and requires fewer FTE burdens to license and regulate such systems. This is not the case for all NGSO systems, however, even if the total number of authorized space stations in their systems is close to the ten or fewer space stations permitted to be authorized under a small satellite authorization. Accordingly, the Commission does not find that the record, at this time, supports a finding that creating new fee categories for NGSO space stations achieves its goals better than the small and large constellation categories that the Commission adopts. In addition, the Commission dismisses calls to revisit and revise the Commission's prior decision to allocate regulatory fees between GSO and NGSO space stations on a 60/40 basis, rather than the prior 80/20 basis, because they are outside the scope of proposals for which comment was sought in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees FNPRM and they raise no new arguments that have not already been fully considered and rejected by the Commission.

55. The Commission adopts the amendments to its methodology for assessing space and earth station regulatory fees in time for them to be effective for fiscal year 2025. Comments widely support making the changes effective immediately, given the notice of the intended changes since early 2024 and the increased fairness and administrability of the amended methodology. The Commission declines to postpone until fiscal year 2026 the assessment of regulatory fees on GSO space stations that were considered to be non-operational and not previously subject to regulatory fees, as proposed by one commenter. Although it is argued that additional time is needed for fee payors to plan for such fees and to allow them to assess whether to deactivate non-operational space stations at an earlier date than planned, the Commission finds that there has been ample time for fee payors to plan for the possibility of such fees and to take actions in anticipation of such fees. Accordingly, the Commission will immediately provide notice to Congress of these amendments pursuant to section 9 of the Act so that they can become effective after 90 days.

56. The Commission declines to create additional subcategories of earth station regulatory fees at this time. Both the notice of proposed rulemaking and the further notice in this proceeding sought comment on whether the creation of additional earth station fee categories was feasible and whether additional fee categories would better differentiate the amount of regulatory fee burdens with different types of earth station licenses. The Commission determines that the record does not support creation of additional categories of earth station regulatory fees at this time.

57. The Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM sought comment on the question of whether to create subcategories of earth station regulatory fee payors, in addition to the existing single category of “Transmit/Receive & Transmit Only (per authorization or registration).” As examples, the Commission asked if the former distinct fee categories for Very Small Aperture Terminals (VSAT), Mobile-Satellite Earth Stations, and Fixed Earth Stations should be reinstated. Comments in response to the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM expressed doubt that the creation of subcategories of earth stations with differing fee amounts is feasible and urged that the record be further developed before creating subcategories of earth station regulatory fees. The Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees FNPRM sought further comment on these issues, particularly whether there are certain types of earth station licenses that require more FTE burdens to license and regulate, for which a higher regulatory fee should be assessed?

58. The record continues to be insufficient to determine that the creation of additional categories of earth station regulatory fees at this time is either necessary or feasible. The majority of comments continue to oppose the creation of additional earth station regulatory fee categories as difficult to administer fairly or efficiently, and having limited utility given the relatively small variation in fees any changes would produce. Although some comments suggest the possibility of creating a separate fee category for blanket licensed earth stations, the record is not sufficiently developed as to which earth stations would be included in this category since there are many different types of earth stations that can be authorized under blanket licenses, such as earth stations in motion (ESIMS), mobile-satellite service earth stations, and fixed-satellite service VSAT networks. Furthermore, at this time and based on the record before us, the Commission is not able to attribute with any degree of reasonableness the allocation of FTE burdens attributable to blanket earth stations, either by individual service type or collectively, compared to non-blanket licensed stations. It may be possible to do so with a more complete record, but the Commission is not able to do so for fiscal year 2025 and declines to do so now.

59. The Commission also declines to assess regulatory fees on registered receive-only earth stations, which currently are not assessed regulatory fees. The registration of receive-only earth stations is not an authorization, but rather a database entry to record the existence of an earth station that is entitled to protection from interference under rules adopted for other services. The Commission's experience is that such registrations typically require few, if any, FTE burdens to process or regulate, and therefore it is unnecessary to re-create a separate regulatory fee category for such stations.

60. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission incorporated an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees FNPRM. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees FNPRM, including comment on the IRFA. No comments were filed addressing the IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.

61. The Commission is required by Congress pursuant to section 9 of the Act to assess and collect regulatory fees each year to recover the regulatory costs associated with the Commission's oversight and regulatory activities in an amount that can reasonably be expected to equal the amount of its annual appropriation. As part of last year's adoption of regulatory fees, the Commission noted that FY 2023 would be the last year where the Commission will do so for the International Bureau, given the creation of the Space Bureau, and Office of International Affairs. The Commission also noted that an examination of the regulatory fees, and categories for NGSO space stations would be useful in light of changes resulting from the creation of the Space Bureau, and as part of a more holistic review of the FTE burden of the Space Bureau in FY 2024. In FY 2024, the Commission took certain steps to revise regulatory fees for space and earth station payors, but also determined that further consideration, as part of a future notice of proposed rulemaking, would be beneficial. The Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees FNPRM continued the Commission's examination and review of regulatory fees for space and earth station payors regulated by the new Space Bureau, specifically seeking comment on a range of proposed changes to the assessment of regulatory fees for space and earth stations remaining from the FY 2024 Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM. The Commission examined and sought comment on assessing regulatory fees on authorized, but not operational space and earth stations; using an alternative methodology for assessing space station regulatory fees; establishing tiers with sub-categories for small and large constellations of NGSO space stations within the existing Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)—Other fee category based on the number of authorized space stations in the NGSO system; and creating new sub-categories of earth station regulatory fees.

62. The goal of these proposals is to update the regulatory fees and categories for earth and space stations in light of changes resulting from the creation of the Space Bureau and as part of a more holistic review of the regulatory fees for earth and space stations. The Commission also sought to implement changes to make regulatory fees more equitable, administratively manageable, sustainable, and to provide the Commission flexibility to evolve and make adjustments as the space industry continues to evolve.

63. In the Order, the Commission takes steps towards these goals by adopting changes to assess regulatory fees on stations once they are authorized, instead of the current process of assessing regulatory fees when the stations are certified to be operational. The Commission also splits existing regulatory fee categories for Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit) into two new fee categories: small constellations (fewer than 1000 authorized space stations) and large constellations (1000 authorized space stations or more) to better distinguish between space station regulatees and to more accurately apportion fee burdens among them. This delineation should result in lower per unit regulatory fees for the majority of small and other space station fee payors compared to fiscal year 2024. Additionally, the Commission adopts a fee assessment approach that broadens the base of regulatory fee payors to better align fees with the benefits of regulation and that is less subjective than the current system that allocates fees based on the estimated “complexity” of an NGSO system.

64. No comments were filed addressing the impact of the proposed rules on small entities.

65. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.

66. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as under the Small Business Act. In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.” A “small business concern” is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.

67. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental Jurisdictions. The Commission's actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission therefore describes, at the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's Office of Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 34.75 million businesses.

68. Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2022, there were approximately 530,109 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data for exempt organizations available from the IRS.

69. Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2022 Census of Governments indicate there were 90,837 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of this number, there were 36,845 general purpose governments (county, municipal, and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 and 11,879 special purpose governments (independent school districts) with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, the Commission estimates that at least 48,724 entities fall into the category of “small governmental jurisdictions.”

70. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service. DBS service is a nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic “dish” antenna at the subscriber's location. DBS is included in the Wired Telecommunications Carriers industry which comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including Voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution; and wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.

71. The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 3,054 firms operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Based on this data, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small under the SBA small business size standard. According to Commission data however, only two entities provide DBS service—DIRECTV (owned by AT&T) and DISH Network, which require a great deal of capital for operation. DIRECTV and DISH Network both exceed the SBA size standard for classification as a small business. Therefore, the Commission must conclude based on internally developed Commission data, in general DBS service is provided only by large firms.

72. Fixed Satellite Small Transmit/Receive Earth Stations. Neither the SBA nor the Commission have developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to Fixed Satellite Small Transmit/Receive Earth Stations. Satellite Telecommunications is the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard. The SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has $44 million or less in annual receipts. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there was a total of 275 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 242 firms had revenue of less than $25 million. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard most fixed satellite small transmit/receive earth stations can be considered small entities. The Commission notes however, that the SBA's revenue small business size standard is applicable to a broad scope of satellite telecommunications providers included in the U.S. Census Bureau's Satellite Telecommunications industry definition. Additionally, the Commission does not request nor collect annual revenue information from satellite telecommunications providers, and is therefore unable to more accurately estimate the number of fixed satellite small transmit/receive earth stations that would be classified as a small business under the SBA size standard.

73. Fixed Satellite Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT) Systems. Neither the SBA nor the Commission have developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to Fixed Satellite Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT) Systems. A VSAT is a relatively small satellite antenna used for satellite-based point-to-multipoint data communications applications. VSAT networks provide support for credit verification, transaction authorization, and billing and inventory management. Satellite Telecommunications is the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard. The SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has $44 million or less in annual receipts. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were a total of 275 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 242 firms had revenue of less than $25 million. Thus, for this industry under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of Fixed Satellite Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT) System licensees are small entities. The Commission notes however, that the SBA's revenue small business size standard is applicable to a broad scope of satellite telecommunications providers included in the U.S. Census Bureau's Satellite Telecommunications industry definition. Additionally, the Commission does not request nor collect annual revenue information from satellite telecommunications providers, and is therefore unable to more accurately estimate the number of Fixed Satellite VSAT System licenses that would be classified as a small business under the SBA size standard.

74. Home Satellite Dish (HSD) Service. HSD or the large dish segment of the satellite industry is the original satellite-to-home service offered to consumers and involves the home reception of signals transmitted by satellites operating generally in the C-band frequency. Unlike DBS, which uses small dishes, HSD antennas are between four and eight feet in diameter and can receive a wide range of unscrambled (free) programming and scrambled programming purchased from program packagers that are licensed to facilitate subscribers' receipt of video programming. Because HSD provides subscription services, HSD falls within the industry category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.

75. Mobile Satellite Earth Stations. Neither the SBA nor the Commission have developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to Mobile Satellite Earth Stations. Satellite Telecommunications is the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small business size standard classifies a business with $44 million or less in annual receipts as small. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 275 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 242 firms had revenue of less than $25 million. Thus, for this industry under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of Mobile Satellite Earth Station licensees are small entities. The Commission notes however, that the SBA's revenue small business size standard is applicable to a broad scope of satellite telecommunications providers included in the U.S. Census Bureau's Satellite Telecommunications industry definition. Additionally, based on Commission data as of February 1, 2024, there were 16 Mobile Satellite Earth Stations licensees. The Commission does not request nor collect annual revenue information from satellite telecommunications providers, and is therefore unable to estimate the number of Mobile Satellite Earth Station licensees that would be classified as a small business under the SBA size standard.

76. Satellite Master Antenna Television (SMATV) Systems, also known as Private Cable Operators (PCOs). SMATV systems or PCOs are video distribution facilities that use closed transmission paths without using any public right-of-way. They acquire video programming and distribute it via terrestrial wiring in urban and suburban multiple dwelling units such as apartments and condominiums, and commercial multiple tenant units such as hotels and office buildings. SMATV systems or PCOs are included in the Wired Telecommunications Carriers' industry which includes wireline telecommunications businesses. The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.

77. Satellite Telecommunications. This industry comprises firms “primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.” Satellite telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth station operators. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business with $44 million or less in annual receipts as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 275 firms in this industry operated for the entire year. Of this number, 242 firms had revenue of less than $25 million. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard most satellite telecommunications service providers can be considered small entities. The Commission notes however, that the SBA's revenue small business size standard is applicable to a broad scope of satellite telecommunications providers included in the U.S. Census Bureau's Satellite Telecommunications industry definition. Additionally, the Commission neither requests nor collects annual revenue information from satellite telecommunications providers, and is therefore unable to more accurately estimate the number of satellite telecommunications providers that would be classified as a small business under the SBA size standard.

78. All Other Telecommunications. This industry is comprised of establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Providers of internet services ( e.g. dial-up ISPs) or VoIP services, via client-supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts of $40 million or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 1,079 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million. Based on this data, the Commission estimates that the majority of “All Other Telecommunications” firms can be considered small.

79. The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of proposed rules on small entities, as well as projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record.

80. The Order does not adopt any changes to the Commission's current reporting or recordkeeping requirements for small entities. The Order does however adopt changes to the regulatory fee payment structure applicable to small and other stations that subjects a licensee or grantee to fee payment obligations when the license or grant of market access is received from the Commission. As a result, a small licensee or grantee will be subject to regulatory fee payment requirements sooner. In addition, the broadened base of regulatory fee payors which recovers fees from all licensees who benefit from the Space Bureau's licensing and regulatory activities should lower the per unit regulatory fee burden by increasing the number of units on which fees are assessed and may result in reduced fees for some small entities.

81. There could also be a positive economic impact for small entities from Commission's eliminations of the existing regulatory fee categories for Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit) and creation of a distinct fee category for small constellations having less than 1000 authorized space stations which the Commission believes appropriately apportion fees commensurate with Space Bureau resources attributable to regulating these licensees and grantees, and will remove the “one-fee fits all” assessment commenters considered unfair. Further, the Commission finds it reasonable that larger constellations that benefit more from the use of Commission resources than smaller constellations, should be assessed greater regulatory fees, per unit. Lastly, consistent with the Commission's objective of revising the current regulatory fee structure to be more fair, administrable, and sustainable, small entities will be impacted by its adoption of regulatory fees on all NGSO space stations (other than those eligible for paying regulatory fees under the small satellites category) within new fee categories of NGSO—Small Constellations (fewer than 1000 authorized space stations) and NGSO—Large Constellations (1000 authorized space stations or more) and by eliminating the NGSO—Less Complex category entirely. Fees between small and large NGSO constellations will be apportioned on a 60/40 basis, with 60% of NGSO space station fees allocated to small constellations and 40% to large constellations. Consistent with the Commission's existing approach small satellite fees will be deducted on a pro rata basis between small and large constellations.

82. The Commission considered a proposal from the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fee FNPRM to assess regulatory fees in instances where there are separately identifiable space station authorizations, but which the space stations have not been considered to be separably operational and therefore have not been subject to separate regulatory fees under Commission rules. While a single regulatory fee might make sense if regulatory fees were intended to recover solely the FTE burdens associated with regulatory oversight of satellite's operations, section 9 of the Act requires the Commission to recover all aspects of its licensing and regulatory functions—before, during, and after authorization. Thus, where there are separate station authorizations for a single satellite, evidenced by separate call signs, the Commission finds it is more in line with Congress's intent to assess separate regulatory fees to recover the separate FTE burdens associated with each authorization, which could impact small entities.

83. The Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fee FNPRM also sought comment on whether regulatory fees should be assessed on small and other GSO space stations that are co-located with other GSO space stations or that serve as non-operational “on-orbit spares” for other operational GSO space stations. Finding that the goals of section 9 of the Communications Act are not served by continuing to exclude space stations from regulatory fees simply because they are co-located with other operational space stations or serve as on-orbit spares to other operational space stations, the Commission will now assess regulatory fees on small and other GSO space stations co-located with other GSO space station. The premise that underlies exclusion in both instances is that the space stations were not considered to be separately operational, but the Commission has determined that operational status is no longer the appropriate basis for determining whether to assess regulatory fees. As is the case for stations with multiple authorizations, a single regulatory fee would make sense if regulatory fees were intended to recover solely the regulatory oversight of satellite's operations, but section 9 of the Act requires the Commission to recover all aspects of licensing and regulatory functions—before, during, and after authorization. In the case of co-located or on-orbit spare space stations, the amount of FTE burdens required to license these space stations does not appear to be substantially different from that required to license other space stations, since staff must still evaluate the applications to determine compliance with the Commission's rules and policies, and such space stations receive licenses that confer benefits to the licensees.

84. Small and other regulated entities are required to pay regulatory fees on an annual basis. The cost of compliance with the annual regulatory assessment for small entities is the amount assessed for their regulatory fee category based on the rules adopted in the Order and should not require small entities to hire professionals to comply.

85. The regulatory fees resulting from the Order will be payable in FY 2025, and small entities that qualify can take advantage of the exemption from payment of regulatory fees allowed under the de minimis threshold. Under the Commission's rules, small and other entities may request a waiver, reduction, and/or deferral of their regulatory fees. The waiver process provides smaller entities that may not be familiar with the Commission's procedural filing rules an easier filing process than their larger counterparts.

86. The RFA requires an agency to provide, “a description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities. . .including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.”

87. In the Order, the Commission considered but declined to adopt an alternative methodology with a tiered structure for assessing space station regulatory fees that eliminates the distinction between GSO, NGSO, and all the subcategories of NGSO, while preserving a separate fee category for small satellites, in favor of the proposal in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees FNPRM to assess regulatory fees on stations under the existing methodology once they are authorized, versus when the stations are certified to be operational. While there may have been some been some benefit to small entities with the tiered approach alternative methodology, a fee structure that allocates payment obligations in proportion to the use of Commission resources associated with of oversight of licensees, and grantees, and broadening the base of regulatory fee payors thereby spreading the recovery of fees from all licensees who benefit from the Space Bureau's licensing and regulatory activities, better achieves the Commission's compliance with the objectives of section 9 of the Act. The impact for small entities is potentially reduced since lowering the per unit regulatory fee burden by increasing the number of units on which fees are assessed allows benefits to accrue to all space and earth station licensees. Comments in response to the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees FNPRM strongly support assessing regulatory fees when space and earth stations are authorized, rather than when they are operational. In addition, the record did not provide a sufficient basis for assessing a separate, lower fee for stations that are authorized, but not yet operational. The Commission also considered but declined to adopt an approach that would exclude assessment of fees on small and other space stations that are authorized solely for TT&C operations. While fee assessment on such space stations has the potential to impose costs and create financial risk for these space station fee payors, the Commission determined that these concerns do not outweigh the need to assess regulatory fees on regulatees of the same class who benefit from FTE burdens. TT&C communications are still radiocommunications authorized by the Commission and they are subject to regulatory oversight by the Commission. Significant FTE burdens are involved with the licensing of stations, even before a station becomes operational, and staff expertise is utilized by the industry before, during, and after an application (including modifications thereof) are filed. This also applies to space and earth stations that are used solely for TT&C. Thus, the Commission determined at this time that there is insufficient basis to find that regulatory fees should not be assessed on TT&C-only space stations. The Commission expects, however, to reexamine in a future proceeding whether it is feasible to ascertain whether fewer FTE burdens can be reasonably ascribed to the licensing and regulatory oversight of space stations authorized solely for TT&C communications, so that a new, separate fee category might be able to be created for such stations.

88. As discussed in the section E above, the two new fee categories, “Space Stations (Non-geostationary orbit)—Small Constellations (fewer than 1,000 authorized space stations)” and “Space Stations (Non-geostationary orbit)—Large Constellations (1,000 or more authorized space stations),” will likely benefit small entities. By eliminating the separate fee category for “Less Complex” space stations, all non-geostationary orbit space stations (other than small satellites) will be placed into two tiers, which will result in a greater number of fee payors per tier. In turn, the probability of sudden or unpredictable swings in the number of units within the fee category will be decreased, as well as the potential for rapid and unpredictable changes in fees from year to year when a single fee payor in each tier is added or removed. These new space station categorizations are reasonable and fair because creation of separate fee categories for small and large constellations recognizes that non-geostationary orbit space station constellations with more authorized space stations are likely to benefit more from the Commission's licensing and regulatory efforts than constellations with substantially fewer authorized space stations. Further, using the number of authorized space stations in an non-geostationary orbit satellite system to allocate FTE burdens is simpler than the current system of using complexity as a proxy for FTE burdens.

89. Acutely aware of the financial impact of regulatory fees, particularly on smaller and less capitalized space companies, the Commission retained the existing regulatory fees methodology with targeted modifications rather than adopting a completely different alternative methodology for assessing space station regulatory fees.

90. The Commission is presently focused on reducing the total fee burden to be divided among regulated entities by making the Space Bureau's operations more efficient. It finds that continued use of the existing methodology will maintain stability and prevent unnecessary disruption while broader reforms are ongoing. At the same time, targeted changes to the existing methodology will substantially reduce the fee burden for a large class of payors. Accordingly, the Commission finds that now is not the time to adopt a wholly new methodology for space station regulatory fees. Rather, the overarching goals of fair, administrable, and sustainable regulatory fees can equally be achieved by targeted changes to the existing methodology. The Commission observes that the changes in the space industry that led to the creation of the Space Bureau and the Commission's re-examination of space and earth station regulatory fees are still ongoing. Any wholesale departure from the existing methodology at this juncture runs significant the risk of adopting a new fee methodology that still reflects past assumptions about licensing and regulation of space and earth stations. Comments agree that the Commission should not undertake a major overhaul of its space and earth station regulatory fee methodologies in light of the ongoing modernization efforts.

91. Finally, in light of an insufficient record to determine that the creation of additional categories of earth station regulatory fees at this time is either necessary or feasible, the Commission considered but declined to adopt new categories of regulatory fees for earth stations. The majority of comments continue to oppose the creation of additional earth station regulatory fee categories as difficult to administer fairly or efficiently, and having limited utility given the relatively small variation in fees any changes would produce. On the other hand although there are some comments that suggest the possibility of creating a separate fee category for blanket licensed earth stations, the record is not sufficiently developed as to which earth stations would be included in this category since there are many different types of earth stations that can be authorized under blanket licenses, such as earth stations in motion, mobile-satellite service earth stations, and fixed-satellite service VSAT networks. Furthermore, at this time and based on the record, the Commission is not able to attribute with any degree of reasonableness the allocation of FTE burdens to blanket earth stations, either by individual service type or collectively, compared to non-blanket licensed stations.

On November 13, 2024, DOE published a final rule that comprehensively revised its Acquisition Regulation in order to update and streamline the policies, procedures, provisions and clauses that are applicable to DOE's contracts (“November 2024 Final Rule”). 89 FR 89720. The rulemaking updated or eliminated coverage that is obsolete or that unnecessarily duplicates the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and retained only that coverage which either implements or supplements the FAR for the award and administration of the DOE's contracts. The rule added several new clauses and amended several existing clauses in order to promote more uniform application of the DOE's contract award and administration policies.

The November 2024 Final Rule in error provided amendatory instructions which resulted in deletion of text from 48 CFR 970.5204-3(b) that was not intended to be removed through the rulemaking. The deleted text, 48 CFR 970.5204-3(b)(2)-(5), was initially adopted in 2005 (70 FR 37016) and amended in 2009 (74 FR 36374) and 2014 (79 FR 56285). Through this technical amendment, DOE is reinstating 48 CFR 970.5204-3(b)(2)-(5) as adopted in the 2014 rulemaking as the November 2024 Final Rule never intended to remove this text from the regulations. Without reinstating this text, the records that are deemed contractor-owned records significantly decrease. It would leave open to interpretation whether these types of records would be Federal records subject to Federal records management requirements, as opposed to contractor-owned records. This technical amendment is necessary to ensure that regulation in its entirety is reported in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), DOE finds that there is good cause not to issue a separate notice to solicit public comment on the change made by this rule. This rule reinstates language that was removed in error. Additionally, the reinstated language was adopted pursuant to notice-and-comment and no changes have been made to the reinstated language in this rule. Therefore, issuing a separate notice to solicit public comment is unnecessary and serves no useful purpose.

As such, this rule is not subject to the 30-day delay in effective date requirement of 5 U.S.C. 553(d) otherwise applicable to rules that make substantive changes.

The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final rule; technical amendment.

This final rule authorizes an RQE Program fee collection. NMFS published the proposed rule in the Federal Register to authorize an RQE Program fee collection on October 31, 2024 (89 FR 86772). The comment period on the proposed rule ended on December 2, 2024. NMFS received 129 comment letters on the proposed rule. NMFS considered all comments submitted on or before December 2, 2024 in the development of this final rule. A summary of the comments and NMFS' responses are provided in the Comments and Responses section of this preamble. All public comment letters submitted during the comment period may be obtained at: https://www.regulations.gov. A detailed review of the rationale for these regulations is provided in the preamble to the proposed rule (89 FR 86772, October 31, 2024).

Due to the complications of implementing this RQE fee collection program mid-season, this final rule will be effective on January 1, 2026.

In December 2022, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 (Pub. L. 117-328), the U.S. Congress (Congress) enacted the Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act (Act). Public Law 117-328, 136 Stat. 4459, 5260-61 (Dec. 29, 2022). Section 106 of the Act authorizes the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) to recommend, and the Secretary of Commerce to approve, “regulations necessary for the collection of fees from charter vessel operators who guide recreational anglers who retain Pacific halibut in IPHC regulatory areas 2C and 3A.” Under the section 106 of the Act, any fees collected shall be available for financing administrative costs of the RQE Program; the purchase of halibut Quota Share (QS) in areas 2C and 3A by the RQE; halibut conservation and research; and promotion of the halibut resource by the RQE. This final rule implements section 106 of the Act.

The IPHC and NMFS manage fishing for Pacific halibut (halibut, Hippoglossus stenolepis ) through regulations established under authority of the Halibut Act. The IPHC adopts regulations governing the halibut fishery under the Convention between the United States and Canada for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea (Convention), signed at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 2, 1953, as amended by a Protocol Amending the Convention (signed at Washington, DC, on March 29, 1979). For the United States, regulations developed by the IPHC are subject to acceptance by the Secretary of State with concurrence from the Secretary of Commerce. After acceptance by the Secretary of State and concurrence from the Secretary of Commerce, NMFS publishes notice of the efficacy of the IPHC regulations in the Federal Register . On March 18, 2024, NMFS published the IPHC regulations for the 2024 fishing year ( i.e., 0001 hours, Alaska local time, on January 1, through 2400 hours, Alaska local time, on December 31). IPHC regulations affecting sport fishing for halibut and vessels in the charter halibut fishery in IPHC regulatory areas 2C and 3A may be found in that final rule (89 FR 19275, March 18, 2024).

Section 5 of the Halibut Act provides the Secretary of Commerce with general responsibility to carry out the Convention and the Halibut Act. In adopting regulations that may be necessary to carry out the purposes and objectives of the Convention and the Halibut Act, the Secretary of Commerce is directed to consult with the Secretary of the department in which the U.S. Coast Guard is operating, which is currently the Department of Homeland Security.

Section 5 of the Halibut Act also provides the Council with authority to develop regulations for waters off Alaska, including limited access regulations that are in addition to, and not in conflict with, approved IPHC regulations. Regulations developed by the Council may be implemented by NMFS only after approval by the Secretary of Commerce. The Council exercised this authority in the development of halibut fishery management measures, codified at 50 CFR 300.65 through 300.67 and 50 CFR part 600. The Council also developed the Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program for the commercial halibut and sablefish fisheries, codified at 50 CFR part 679. Management of halibut in the IFQ Program is authorized under section 5 of the Halibut Act.

The proposed rule for this action provides a comprehensive history of management of the guided sport fishery for halibut off Alaska (also referred to herein as the “charter fishery”) (89 FR 86772, October 31, 2024). The proposed rule also provides detailed background on the commercial halibut and sablefish IFQ Program and how the IFQ Program intersects with management of the charter fishery, primarily through the Catch Sharing Plan (CSP) that establishes allocations of halibut between the commercial halibut IFQ and charter sectors.

The proposed rule describes the history and development of annual management measures for the charter fishery, including the current annual management processes. The proposed rule also provides a summary of the development of the Charter Halibut Limited Access Program that established CHPs and provides details on the Guided Angler Fish (GAF) Program and the RQE Program. The proposed rule also describes the Military Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) and Community Quota Entity (CQE) programs that issue military charter halibut permits and community charter halibut permits that are also subject to the same annual management measures and many of the same regulations as other CHP holders. The RQE Program fee collection and associated stamp apply to the MWR and CQE.

This action implements regulations that focus on the already established RQE Program. The RQE Program was implemented in 2018 as part of the IFQ Program in IPHC regulatory areas 2C and 3A. More details on the RQE Program are provided in the proposed rule (82 FR 46016, October 3, 2017) and final rule (83 FR 47819, September 21, 2018).

The program allows the RQE designated by NMFS to purchase and hold a limited amount of commercial halibut QS that would yield pounds of Recreational Fishing Quota (RFQ). RFQ is the pounds of halibut issued to an RQE on an annual basis to supplement the amount of halibut allocated to the charter halibut fishery (83 FR 47819, September 21, 2018). The RQE Program therefore provides a mechanism for the RQE to purchase a portion of commercial halibut QS for use by the charter fishery, which may result in less restrictive annual management measures for the charter fishery or help maintain existing management measures if there are continued reductions in halibut abundance.

In March 2020, NMFS approved the application of the Catch Accounting Through Compensated Halibut (CATCH) Association to serve as the RQE. CATCH is currently eligible to purchase and permanently hold halibut QS, but, to date, CATCH has not purchased any halibut QS, as there was previously no funding mechanism in place.

As part of the 2014 CSP, NMFS implemented the GAF Program to authorize limited annual transfers of commercial halibut IFQ as GAF to qualified individual CHP holders. The GAF Program is described in more detail in the proposed rule for the CSP (78 FR 39122, June 28, 2013).

To use GAF, qualified CHP holders seek a GAF permit from NMFS, which authorizes them to lease commercial halibut IFQ for the purpose of offering charter vessel anglers the opportunity to retain halibut up to the limit for unguided anglers. For example, if charter management regulations in IPHC regulatory area 2C restrict charter vessel anglers to a 1-halibut daily bag limit, a charter vessel angler could use GAF to retain a second halibut, bringing the angler's total retained amount to 2 halibut—the same daily bag limit that applies to unguided anglers. Similarly, GAF also allows charter vessel anglers to retain halibut on days that are otherwise closed to halibut retention by charter vessel anglers by the annual management measures published pursuant to § 300.62.

NMFS issues GAF in whole numbers of halibut to individual CHP holders with GAF permits based on a conversion factor from IFQ pounds. Conversion factors are based on the average net weights of GAF retained in the applicable IPHC regulatory area during the previous year. The GAF Program has restrictions on transfers and use of GAF that are intended to prevent a particular individual, corporation, or other entity from acquiring an excessive share of halibut fishing privileges as GAF.

Starting January 1, 2026, this final rule requires CHP holders to purchase an electronic stamp for $20 each for all charter vessel anglers, 18 years of age or older, for each charter vessel fishing trip in a given calendar day, or each calendar day during a charter vessel fishing trip that spans multiple days, that the charter vessel angler intends to catch and retain halibut on a charter vessel fishing trip in IPHC regulatory areas 2C and 3A. However, this stamp requirement does not apply if a charter vessel angler retains halibut as GAF on days that are otherwise closed to halibut retention by the annual management measures published pursuant to § 300.62.

NMFS will transfer the collected stamp fees to a specific fund in the Federal Treasury, currently referred to as the RQE Fund, which has been created by Congress. From this account, Congress may make the money available to NMFS, to be used for the four purposes as specified in the Act and described above. For the promotion of the halibut resource and the purchase of IFQ shares in IPHC regulatory areas 2C and 3A, NMFS intends to issue funds to the RQE through periodic grants. Congress also authorized NMFS to use monies collected from this fee program to pay for RQE Program administrative costs and to support halibut conservation and research.

This final rule requires that CHP holders obtain the stamps from NMFS and pay applicable fees for all stamps validated for their CHP in a given fishing year. All CHP holders are subject to these regulations, including CQEs and MWR programs holding any type of CHP. A CHP holder may log in to their CHP holder eFISH account to purchase stamps at any time and in any quantity. After the CHP holder purchases stamps, they are held in secure, individual CHP holder accounts within eFISH that are maintained by NMFS, as discussed below in the “Charter Halibut Permit Holder Accounts” section. Stamps reside in the account indefinitely until a charter vessel guide, as defined at § 300.61, using the CHP debits ( i.e., uses) the stamp by the stamp validation process discussed below under “Charter Halibut Stamp Validation.” CHP holders commonly lease their CHPs. As such, the charter vessel guide who leases, or otherwise uses the CHP, might not be the person who holds ( i.e., owns) the CHP. This final rule specifies that the CHP holder is the person responsible for purchasing an adequate number of stamps to cover the number of stamp validations that are made by the charter vessel guide. If the CHP is sold, CHP holders are responsible for fees for stamp validations that occurred during their respective periods of CHP ownership.

Section 6 of the Act authorizes the development of regulations “for the collection of fees from charter vessel operators.” We do not interpret this provision so restrictively to mean that only a charter vessel operator can be required to purchase stamps. The CHP holder would otherwise be indirectly responsible for the failure to purchase stamps and is in a better position to directly carry the burden of purchasing them. This rulemaking therefore imposes that obligation on the CHP holder, consistent with Congress' intent, purpose, and plain meaning of the Act. Indeed, under longstanding regulations at § 300.67(a)(1), every CHP holder is obligated to ensure that associated charter vessel operators and charter vessel guides comply with all applicable regulatory requirements. Further, CHP holders commonly are the charter vessel operators themselves.

There are also additional reasons to impose the obligation to purchase stamps on CHP holders. If NMFS were to impose that duty on charter vessel operators, the costs of administering this program would increase markedly.

Charter vessel guides and charter vessel operators are often employees of the CHP holder and they have no durable link to NMFS or the charter halibut regulatory programs. Conversely, CHP holders already have established an annual administrative relationship with NMFS. As a result, if charter vessel operators were required to purchase stamps, many new administrative accounts would have to be created. Ultimately, this would mean that there would be a much higher number of eFISH users, the number of eFISH users could change significantly each year, and the technical support that NMFS would need to provide to maintain this system would significantly increase costs. Because the Act authorizes the deduction of administrative costs from the fees collected, this would reduce the benefits of the RQE Program, which would be at odds with Congress's intent and purpose in passing the Act. The requirements for CHP holders in the RQE Program are also consistent with other NMFS regulations that obligate persons or business entities who hold exclusive fishing rights to ensure regulatory compliance for most of the actions associated with their permits ( e.g., § 679.85(a)(1)).

Finally, collecting fees from CHP holders will make the RQE fee collection provisions more readily enforceable than collecting fees from charter vessel operators. In the event of a stamp deficiency, NMFS's only remedy would be to pursue collections against charter vessel operators, who are not otherwise required to register with NMFS. This contrasts with program enforcement for CHP holders, who are limited in number and have greater incentives to timely pay any stamp deficiency and, therein, ensure their CHPs are current and active. Indeed, a CHP is an important asset that a holder has a vested interest in maintaining, and it must be approved by NMFS annually before use. NMFS can require payment of outstanding fees before renewing a CHP.

Under this final rule, NMFS administers the fee collection and issues stamps to CHP holders through a NMFS-approved system. Currently, the NMFS-approved system is a secure online platform, eFISH, that is accessed by Alaska fishery participants for a variety of purposes, including the annual registration of CHPs, recording the retention of GAF, and paying business fishery fees.

Each CHP holder, who holds one or more CHPs, will be required under this final rule to create an eFISH online account and ensure that fees are paid for purchased stamps. All CHPs held by a CHP holder will be included in a single eFISH account, allowing stamps to be used freely across all CHPs on that account. For military charter halibut permits, the MWR is considered to be the CHP holder. For community charter halibut permits, the CQE is considered to be the CHP holder.

Stamps remain in the account until they are validated and debited from the account ( i.e., until they are used) by a charter vessel guide, by the stamp validation process discussed below under “Charter Vessel Guides Validate Stamps.” The stamps are not year-specific and do not expire. If stamps are not used in a given fishing year, they carry over to the next fishing year.

CHP holders are responsible for ensuring that the number of validated stamps tied to their CHP does not exceed the number of stamps that have been purchased in a given fishing year. If a CHP holder is uncertain of how many stamps they may need to purchase for a given season, they may use their eFISH account to monitor stamp validations and to purchase stamps in small increments throughout the fishing year as needed. CHP holders with a non-transferable CHP who are uncertain as to how much longer their CHP is valid may do the same to avoid purchasing more stamps than they need.

If the number of stamp validations exceeds the number of stamps purchased on a CHP holder account, NMFS will notify the CHP holder and give them the opportunity to reconcile the account prior to the annual charter halibut stamp reconciliation deadline. If an uncorrected deficit of stamps exists from the previous fishing year for one or more CHPs, all associated CHPs in that eFISH account are then considered to be delinquent.

Should a CHP holder disagree that their account reflects a stamp purchase and validation imbalance, they have the right to request a hearing and at such a hearing to present evidence to support their position. If NMFS ultimately determines that an account purchase and validation imbalance has not been reconciled for the previous fishing year, NMFS may issue an Initial Administrative Determination (IAD) and suspend the use and transfer of any CHPs associated with the CHP holder account until the outstanding fees are paid in full. The CHP holder may appeal and have the IAD reviewed by NOAA's National Appeals Office.

This final rule requires that charter vessel guides validate stamps before each charter vessel fishing trip begins. Stamp validation requires the charter vessel guide to record the number of stamps that are required for a particular charter vessel fishing trip in the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) Saltwater Sport Fishing Charter Trip Logbook (ADF&G logbook). A charter vessel guide must validate one stamp for each charter vessel angler, 18 years of age or older, for each charter vessel fishing trip in a given calendar day, or each calendar day during a charter vessel fishing trip that spans multiple days, that the charter vessel angler intends to catch and retain halibut on the charter vessel in IPHC regulatory area 2C or 3A, unless that charter vessel angler retains halibut as GAF on a day that is otherwise closed to halibut retention by the annual management measures published pursuant to § 300.62.

A charter vessel fishing trip, as defined at § 300.61, begins with the first deployment of fishing gear into the water from a charter vessel by a charter vessel angler. Charter vessel guides must use the ADF&G logbook to validate the number of stamps that are needed for that charter trip before this time, or prior to the first deployment of fishing gear on each calendar day of a charter vessel fishing trip that spans multiple days. This timing is consistent with Federal regulations that require charter vessel guides to enter the name and sport fishing license number of each charter vessel angler in a properly assigned ADF&G logbook before a charter vessel fishing trip begins (§ 300.65(d)(4)(ii)(B)(6)). This means that if weather, or other reasons, forces a charter vessel to return to port before fishing begins no stamp needs to be validated for that day.

For a given charter vessel fishing trip, a stamp is valid from the time that it is validated, Alaska local time, through 2400 on the calendar day on which it was validated, Alaska local time, and is not transferable between charter vessel anglers nor allowed to be used on any other charter vessel fishing trip. For purposes of stamps, a charter vessel excursion that spans more than one calendar day treats each calendar day in which fishing occurs as an individual charter vessel fishing trip, meaning that a stamp must be validated for each charter vessel angler on each calendar day before first deployment of gear. In the case of a charter vessel angler who goes on multiple charter vessel fishing trips in one calendar day, a stamp is required to be validated for that angler for each charter vessel fishing trip.

Current ADF&G regulations require charter vessel guides to upload or otherwise send their completed ADF&G logbook information to ADF&G on a regular schedule. The stamp validation information uploaded from ADF&G logbooks will be shared with NMFS. NMFS will then compare stamp validation information from the ADF&G logbook with the individual CHP holder stamp accounts in eFISH periodically during the fishing season, with a final update and comparison prior to December 31. In this way, CHP holder stamp accounts will contain a record of stamp purchases and validations. Due to the time lag between submitting the ADF&G logbooks and NMFS receiving the ADF&G logbook information, it may take several weeks for eFISH accounts to reflect validations. Charter halibut fishery participants, who may not be the CHP holder, will also be able to monitor validations through access to their ADF&G logbook data.

Additionally, this final rule includes flexibility in that stamp validations may occur even if stamps have not been purchased yet. For example, a CHP holder leasing their CHP may not know the exact number of validations charter vessel guide(s) operating under their CHP have used during the fishing year. The CHP holder has the option to buy any additional stamps they need for a given fishing year after all validations have occurred, with the only requirement that, within the time period prescribed by § 679.46(a)(1)(v), the CHP holder must purchase enough stamps to cover the validations indicated in their eFISH CHP holder account.

As discussed above, once purchased, stamps are linked to the eFISH account of the CHP holder who purchased them and all CHPs held by a CHP holder will be included in a single eFISH account, allowing stamps to be used freely across all CHPs on that account. Stamps do not expire and, if they have not been validated by the end of the fishing year, they may be validated in a future fishing year. If a CHP is revoked, transferred, or becomes invalid, or if a community charter halibut permit or military charter halibut permit is invalidated, the stamps remain linked to the account that held that CHP. Should another valid CHP be transferred to the person, or entity, associated with that eFISH account, the stamps will be available for use by the holder of the valid CHP.

This final rule does not allow a CHP holder to transfer stamps to another CHP holder. NMFS considered, but did not select options, to allow for transfer or reimbursement of unused stamps. Given the purchase-as-needed flexibility built into the RQE Program and the lack of an expiration date for stamps that have not been validated (used), NMFS determined that allowing stamp transfers and reimbursements would serve limited purposes and materially increase the complexity and administrative costs associated with the program, without proportionate benefits. The proposed RQE Program fee collection allows CHP holders to purchase stamps at any time during the season, allowing CHP holders to maintain an operable amount of stamps without the need to stockpile stamps, and to carry over unused stamps indefinitely.

This final rule implements a $20 fee that will apply to each stamp required for a charter vessel angler who intends to catch and retain halibut. The $20 fee is expected to provide the RQE Program with meaningful funding to benefit the entire charter halibut fishery and halibut resource while limiting the cost burden experienced by the individual CHP holders that would pay the fee. Before selecting the $20 stamp fee amount, NMFS considered a range of fee amounts and options, which are further described in the preamble to the proposed rule, the RIR, and below under “Comments and Responses” in the responses to Comments 14 and 15.

Under this final rule, the RQE may petition NMFS to increase or decrease the fee for the stamp beginning in 2028. The fee for the stamp may not increase by more than 10 percent of the fee in the previous fishing year. Any fee increases or decreases will be implemented as regulations through the rulemaking process. The RQE may petition NMFS to suspend the fee at any time. NMFS will provide the Council with an update on any fee increase, decrease, or suspension requests.

This final rule also allows for suspension of the stamp requirement and fee collection, if necessary. These regulations authorize NMFS to temporarily or permanently suspend fee collection if a petition from the RQE is received. This allows NMFS to stop or reduce the fee once the RQE has purchased all the QS it is authorized to hold, or for other reasons.

Additionally, these regulations allow the Regional Administrator to suspend the stamp requirement if the RQE is determined to be out of compliance with regulations, the RQE's own by-laws, or other applicable law; the Regional Administrator approves a petition by the RQE to suspend the RQE fee collection; or Congress no longer provides authorization for the Secretary of Commerce to collect and spend the fees.

This final rule prohibits a charter vessel guide from using a charter vessel to catch and retain halibut in IPHC regulatory area 2C or 3A unless the charter vessel guide has completed a charter halibut stamp validation for each charter vessel angler, 18 years of age or older, for each charter vessel fishing trip in a given calendar day, or each calendar day during a charter vessel fishing trip that spans multiple days, that the charter vessel angler intends to catch and retain halibut. An exception to this prohibition is when a charter vessel angler retains halibut as GAF on a day that is otherwise closed to halibut retention by charter vessels by the annual management measures published pursuant to § 300.62.

Additionally, the final rule prohibits a charter vessel guide from validating a stamp after the charter vessel fishing trip has begun, or after the first deployment of fishing gear on each calendar day of a charter vessel fishing trip that spans multiple days. The final rule prohibits validating a stamp if the charter vessel guide does not have a valid CHP on board the charter vessel per § 300.67(a)(1). This final rule prohibits a CHP holder from failing to purchase or hold a number of charter halibut stamps equal to or greater than the number of charter halibut stamp validations that were performed under their CHP in a given fishing year.

This final rule includes the following substantive changes from the proposed rule to address public comments, clarify regulatory language, and to correct inadvertent errors in the proposed regulations. Throughout the regulatory text, NMFS also made technical and grammar edits to correct regulatory cross references, use consistent terms, remove redundancy, and promote clarity.

At § 300.61, NMFS added definitions with citations for the terms “Charter halibut permit holder,” “Charter halibut stamp,” and “Charter halibut stamp validation.” This change is intended to direct readers from § 300.61 to § 679.2, where the full definition may be found.

NMFS corrected the title of the ADF&G Saltwater Sport Fishing Charter Trip Logbook in the final rule at § 300.65 for “Charter vessel guide requirements” and at § 679.2 for “Charter halibut stamp validation.”

NMFS revised § 300.65(d)(4)(ii)(B)( 11 ) to specify that the validation of stamps must occur before the charter vessel fishing trip begins, or prior to deployment of fishing gear on each calendar day of a charter vessel fishing trip that spans multiple days, consistent with the definition at § 679.2.

NMFS revised the definition of “charter halibut stamp validation” at § 679.2 as well as regulations at §§ 679.7(q)(2) and 679.46(a)(1)(i) to specify that validation of stamps must occur prior to first deployment of gear on a given calendar day for a charter vessel fishing trip that spans multiple calendar days. This modification to the final rule is consistent with the intent of the proposed rule that a stamp is required for each calendar day of a charter vessel fishing trip, and this clarifies the required timing of validation for charter vessel fishing trips that span multiple calendar days.

The proposed rule stated that a stamp must be validated for each charter vessel angler who is 18 years of age or older on board the charter vessel and intends to catch and retain halibut for each charter vessel fishing trip in a given calendar day, or each calendar day during a charter vessel fishing trip that spans multiple days, that the charter vessel angler intends to catch and retain halibut. In response to comments, NMFS removed the requirement to validate a stamp for charter vessel anglers who retain halibut landed as GAF on days that are otherwise closed by regulation to halibut retention under the annual management measures for the charter fishery (see the response to comment 12 in the Comments and Responses section below). Halibut retained as GAF are not included in the annual charter halibut allocations and GAF represent halibut QS that has already been transferred from the commercial halibut fishery to the charter halibut fishery. This change is reflected in the revised definition for “charter halibut stamp” at § 679.2. NMFS also revised the regulation at § 679.46(a)(1) to match the definition for “charter halibut stamp” and by adding a citation for GAF to direct the reader to the correct description of GAF as described at § 300.65.

NMFS revised this final rule from the proposed rule at §§ 679.7(q)(1), 679.46(a)(1)(ii), and 679.46(c)(2) to state that stamps must be validated for charter vessel anglers as specified at § 679.46(a)(1). NMFS notes that these changes do not extend to the use of GAF on days that are open to halibut retention by charter vessel anglers. On these open days, a stamp exemption for GAF would have the potential to undermine both the GAF and RQE Program fee collection, primarily due to the difficulty of accounting for, and enforcing, both bag limits and stamp requirements when halibut landed as GAF are mixed with non-GAF halibut onboard a charter vessel.

The proposed rule included a provision specifying that the RQE could petition NMFS to increase, decrease, or suspend the RQE Program fee collection beginning in 2028 as specified at § 679.46(b)(2). The regulations at § 679.46(d) outline how the RQE would petition NMFS to suspend the fee collection, which is not time-limited. The final rule resolves this inconsistency by revising regulations at § 679.46(b)(2) and adding § 679.46(b)(3) to clarify that the RQE may petition NMFS to suspend the fee at any time.

The proposed rule included a provision specifying that stamps must be obtained and applicable fees paid by persons who hold a CHP and a valid ADF&G sport fishing guide registration at § 679.46(c). This final rule removes the provision at § 679.46(c)(1) specifying that a valid ADF&G sport fishing guide registration is required. Therefore, under this final rule, any CHP holder, regardless of whether they hold a valid ADF&G sport fishing guide registration, will be responsible for obtaining stamps and paying applicable fees for the associated CHP. NMFS made this change because there is no requirement that CHP holders register as sport fishing guides. Therefore, to be consistent with the Council's intent that this fee collection applies to all CHP holders, NMFS removed the provision at § 679.46(c)(1) of the proposed rule. This final rule also revises § 679.46(c)(2) by removing the phrase “ensuring there is a charter halibut stamp that has received” in association with charter halibut stamp validation. This revision clarifies that the charter vessel guide is responsible for stamp validation but is not responsible for ensuring a stamp has been purchased.

Throughout the regulatory text, NMFS replaced references to “fee liability” with language better aligned with the stamp requirement established by this final rule, including “reconciliation,” “charter halibut stamp deficit,” and “outstanding charter halibut stamps.” NMFS also added the phrase “before the charter vessel fishing trip begins” to further clarify the intent of regulations. These changes are technical and do not modify any process or effect between the proposed and final rules. These changes are intended to more precisely describe the requirement that a stamp must be purchased for each stamp validation that occurs in a year.

NMFS received 129 comment submissions on the proposed rule. The comments were from individuals, sportfishing organizations, and fishing guides. Several comment submissions were duplicates or addressed topics outside the scope of the proposed rule. Overall, there was a mix of support and opposition, with those comments opposing the rule expressing concerns about the cost of stamps, the respective responsibilities of CHP holders, charter vessel guides, charter vessel operators, and charter vessel anglers, and the lack of transferability or refunds for purchased halibut stamps. Some commenters expressed concerns about the timing of the proposed and final rules with respect to when the charter halibut fishery occurs. NMFS has summarized the comment submissions and responded to 51 unique comments below.

Comment 1: The proposed rule captures the intent of the fee collection program. This was the product of 15 years of public outreach and the Council process at the request of charter halibut fishery participants and trade organizations. This program will provide benefits while not reducing public access to the resource or impacting sustainability.

Response: NMFS acknowledges the comment.

Comment 2: The RQE Program fee collection of $20 per day is not a cost that will prohibit or deter sport anglers. This is a small financial burden that provides massive benefit to the charter halibut fleet and is the appropriate amount to provide the RQE with purchasing power while also allowing the CHP holders to pass the cost of the stamp to the charter vessel anglers. This fee is also a smaller financial burden on individual CHP holders than purchasing IFQ and utilizing the GAF Program.

Response: NMFS acknowledges the comment.

Comment 3: Several commenters supported the concept of the RQE but requested adjustments to improve the administrative efficiency of the fee collection and to make it more user friendly.

Response: NMFS acknowledges these comments. NMFS has summarized and responded to all of the requested adjustments in the following sections of this response to comments. When appropriate, NMFS has modified the final rule in response to requested adjustments. NMFS also explains when a requested adjustment is not feasible and, therefore, NMFS did not make the change. A complete list of all the changes from proposed to final rule is in this preamble under “Changes from Proposed to Final Rule.”

Comment 4: Currently, the allocation to the charter sector is not sufficient for reasonable opportunity to retain halibut at the current abundance levels in IPHC regulatory area 2C. The RQE will increase opportunities by utilizing the fee component to purchase halibut QS. The RQE could result in less restrictive regulations for the charter halibut fishery, despite the halibut resource being at a 30-year low. The RQE Program fee collection is a good step towards shifting allocation and creating a viable fishery without implementing a permanent stamp fee that cannot be suspended or altered.

Response: NMFS acknowledges the comment.

Comment 5: This fee collection will allow the charter fleet to compete with the self-guided fleet. Avoiding charter closure days and increasing the size limits will create more equity with the self-guided fleet, which is allowed to retain two halibut per person per day with no size restrictions.

Response: NMFS acknowledges the comment.

Comment 6: The charter halibut fleet, and the idea of catching halibut, brings many tourists to Alaska. As a result, local communities benefit from various taxes and the money spent directly at local establishments, which also supports local employment. The RQE Program and associated fee collection help maintain the stability of the charter fleet despite current allocations and dwindling stocks, keeping more charter halibut fishery participants in business.

Response: NMFS acknowledges the comment.

Comment 7: Information received through email flyers and local outreach meetings were useful in informing participants and directing them to comment on the proposed rule.

Response: NMFS acknowledges the comment.

Comment 8: The charter sector should purchase their share of halibut QS. This rule addresses that.

Response: NMFS acknowledges the comment.

Comment 9: The charter halibut stamp should function similarly to the ADF&G king salmon stamp, meaning that it is purchased by the charter vessel angler, not the CHP holder. Additionally, this fee collection should apply to all anglers, including self-guided anglers, and all non-resident anglers.

Response: NMFS disagrees. Congress, through the Act, authorized regulations necessary for the collection of fees from charter vessel operators who guide recreational anglers who retain halibut in IPHC regulatory areas 2C and 3A. As such, NMFS is not authorized to collect fees from charter vessel anglers, or any other individual anglers such as self-guided anglers, nonresident anglers, or resident anglers for charter halibut stamps.

Furthermore, funds collected under this action will benefit only the charter halibut sector. Therefore, there is no equitable reason to include anglers outside the charter halibut sector in this fee collection, even if NMFS did have authorization to collect fees from them.

Comment 10: Research and promotion of the halibut resource should not be an authorized use of funds generated from the fee collection.

Response: Congress specified, through the Act, that any fees collected shall be available for financing administrative costs of the RQE Program; the purchase of halibut QS in areas 2C and 3A by the RQE; halibut conservation and research; and promotion of the halibut resource by the RQE. This action does not address authorized uses of fees collected by this program. NMFS has no authority or discretion to modify laws passed by Congress.

Comment 11: What is the estimated amount of funds that will be available for purchasing QS, compared to the amount of funds for administration, conservation, or promotion of the halibut resource?

Response: As discussed in response to comment 10, the Act allows fees to be used for these purposes. The Act does not specify any specific allocation of fees among the authorized uses of the collected fees. It is expected that fees collected by this program will be primarily used by the RQE to purchase halibut QS, consistent with the intent of the RQE Program. Section 3.5.1.2 of the RIR discusses the expected revenue amounts from this fee collection. The RIR indicates that the estimated average annual revenue from stamp purchases would be $1,788,687 from IPHC regulatory area 2C and $2,205,645 from area 3A. NMFS anticipates issuing funds collected from this program to the RQE as a grant. These grants will include NMFS oversight and may include stipulations on the allowable use of funds.

Comment 12: Stamps should not be required for charter vessel anglers when the charter halibut fishery is closed to halibut retention under the annual management measures for the charter fishery, but the retention of GAF is still allowed. GAF constitutes a transfer of halibut from the commercial IFQ sector and is not part of the annual guided halibut allocation.

Response: NMFS agrees with this comment. NMFS changed this final rule to remove the halibut stamp requirement for GAF users on days that are otherwise closed to halibut retention under the annual management measures for the charter fishery by revising the definition of “charter halibut stamp” at § 679.2 to specify that the stamp does not apply to charter vessel anglers who retain halibut as GAF, as defined at § 300.61, on days that are otherwise closed by the annual management measures for the charter fishery to halibut retention. NMFS also revised the regulation at § 679.46(a)(1) to match the definition for “charter halibut stamp” at § 679.2. To consolidate references to the applicability of stamps, NMFS revised this final rule at §§ 679.7(q)(1)(i), 679.46(a)(1)(ii), and 679.46(c)(2) to state that stamps must be validated for charter vessel anglers as specified at § 679.46(a)(1).

Annual charter halibut management measures in IPHC regulatory areas 2C and 3A often prohibit the retention of halibut by charter vessel anglers on specific days of the week. However, as noted in this comment, these prohibitions typically do not prohibit the retention of GAF halibut on the closed days because halibut retained as GAF are not included in the annual charter halibut allocations. In addition, GAF represent halibut QS that have already been transferred from the commercial halibut fishery to the charter halibut fishery. Additional information about the GAF Program is in the preamble under “Guided Angler Fish (GAF) Program.”

NMFS determined these facts provide sound rationale to remove the halibut stamp requirement for charter vessel anglers who retain only GAF halibut on days that are otherwise closed by regulation to halibut retention under the annual management measures for the charter fishery.

NMFS notes that this change does not extend to the use of GAF on days that are not closed to halibut retention. On these open days, a stamp exemption for GAF has the potential to undermine both the GAF and RQE Program fee collection, primarily due to the difficulty of accounting for, and enforcing, both bag limits and stamp requirements when halibut landed as GAF are mixed with non-GAF halibut onboard a charter vessel.

Comment 13: The RQE Program and associated fee collection are unnecessary because GAF already provides a way for charter businesses to purchase more halibut QS.

Response: NMFS disagrees that the RQE Program and associated fee collection are unnecessary. Both the GAF Program and the RQE Program provide unique benefits to the charter fishery. GAF are intended to benefit individual charter operations by providing a means to temporarily transfer a limited amount of halibut IFQ from the commercial halibut fishery to individual charter vessel guides. This differs from the RQE Program, which allows the RQE to hold halibut QS indefinitely and is designed to benefit all charter operations in IPHC areas 2C and 3A.

NMFS also notes that CHP holders who currently participate in the GAF Program will likely benefit from both programs. That is, all CHP holders will benefit from less restrictive annual management measures and holders of GAF will also continue to benefit from GAF to retain large fish or fish on days otherwise closed to halibut retention.

Comment 14: The stamp fee should be a different price than $20. Several commenters suggested a price of $10 per stamp. Selecting the $20 fee over lesser costs is unreasonable in light of the last-minute changes recommended by the Council in October 2024.

Response: NMFS disagrees with this comment. This final rule establishes a fee of $20 for charter halibut stamps, as recommended by the Council after extensive analysis and public comment. The $20 fee is expected to strike a balance between providing a meaningful amount of funding to benefit the charter fishery while also limiting the annual cost burden. Section 3.5.1.3 of the RIR shows expected revenue to the RQE at various stamp fee amounts. The $20 fee amount is intended to allow the RQE to relatively quickly purchase a reasonable amount of halibut QS to supplement the charter halibut allocation while also representing a nominal increase to the total cost of a charter halibut fishing trip. Beginning on January 1, 2028, the RQE may petition NMFS to increase or decrease the fee for the stamp. Changes to the fee amount will be subject to a regulatory action and all relevant Federal requirements, including an analysis of alternatives and opportunities for public input. NMFS will provide the Council with an update on any requests to modify or suspend the fee for a charter halibut stamp. As discussed in response to comment 15, a $20 fee for each stamp is reasonable considering the analysis and the Council's decision to remove the tiered fee structure in October 2024.

Comment 15: The stamp should resemble the ADF&G king stamp by implementing a one-day, three-day, seven-day or seasonal stamp with discount rates as originally recommended by the Council in 2022. This would reduce costs to anglers and administrative burden to charter halibut fishery participants who would not have to validate stamps each day for anglers fishing multiple days. This would also make it easier for charter vessel guides to adjust their fishing plans on a multi-day trip without having to commit to validating a stamp each day prior to fishing when they may not end up fishing for halibut due to weather or other reasons.

Response: NMFS disagrees with this comment. The Council's original recommendation called for a tiered fee structure for stamps. Although tiered fees are common among State of Alaska stamps and licenses, all the State of Alaska tiered fees that were analyzed for this action are linked to a specific person and must be purchased by the person intending to fish. Applying tiered fees to a daily halibut stamp would greatly add to the complexity and cost of the RQE Program because the stamps would need to be assigned to specific anglers and tracked across multiple days, vessels, and potentially ADF&G logbooks.

As noted in the RIR, in April 2022, the Council recommended a tiered fee structure for halibut stamps, with a base fee of $20 for a daily stamp, and tiered to $40 for a three-day stamp and $60 for a seven-day stamp. After Federal law was amended in early 2023 to authorize the RQE fee collection through the Act, NMFS further analyzed implementation of the fee collection program. This effort included outreach sessions with participants in the charter halibut fishery in several communities located in IPHC regulatory areas 2C and 3A in 2023 and early 2024. NMFS and Council staff subsequently prepared a discussion paper on the halibut stamp fee implementation, and in June 2024 presented the paper to the Council. Among other things, the paper established a rationale for a uniform $20 stamp fee instead of tiered fees. The Council addressed this topic again in October 2024 and took action to amend their original April 2022 motion and to adopt and recommend the uniform $20 stamp fee to the Secretary of Commerce.

During the outreach process, participants in the charter halibut fishery pointed to a lack of equity among fishing businesses if tiered fees were implemented. CHP holders that cater almost exclusively to one or two-day trips would be responsible for paying fees at the highest level, while other operations that log the same number of angler days, but whose guests tend to fish for three or more days, would contribute disproportionately less to the RQE. Ultimately, the Council recommended, and NMFS is adopting, a single daily fee to establish a simple, less costly program that ensures specific business types are not arbitrarily penalized, and all CHP holders will contribute equally to the RQE fee collection based on the number charter vessel angler halibut fishing days. These issues are also described in Section 3.5.1.3 of the RIR.

Comment 16: The removal of the multi-day stamp option adversely impacts the intent-based validation of stamps. Charter vessel guides may have to validate a stamp for every fishing trip, regardless of target species. It is unrealistic to expect enforcement officers to intuitively determine target species at sea.

Response: NMFS disagrees with this comment. The charter halibut stamp validation process and enforcement of the validation is the same for a single day trip or a multi-day trip. The requirement for a halibut stamp is based on whether the charter vessel angler intends at the beginning of each charter vessel fishing trip to catch and retain halibut. From an enforcement perspective, the presence of retained halibut onboard a charter vessel after a charter vessel fishing trip has begun will evidence the need for validated stamps for that charter vessel trip. In any case, under the Council's recommendation, a multi-day stamp would require validation prior to the start of a charter vessel fishing trip on any given day. Functionally, this would be the same as a daily stamp. This final rule does not prohibit the catch and release of halibut without a charter halibut stamp validation. Rather, a charter halibut stamp validation is required only if a charter vessel angler intends to both catch and retain halibut.

Comment 17: Unused stamps should be refundable or, at least, transferable. This will cost the CHP holder money as these stamps are not able to be refunded or validated a second time.

Response: NMFS disagrees. As described in this preamble under “Charter Halibut Stamp Transferability,” NMFS considered, but decided against, allowing for the transfer and reimbursement of purchased stamps. Given the purchase-as-needed flexibility built into the RQE Program fee collection, NMFS determined that allowing stamp transfers and reimbursements would serve limited purposes and materially increase the complexity and administrative costs associated with fee collection without proportionate benefits. CHP holders are allowed to purchase stamps at any time during the season, allowing CHP holders to maintain an operable amount of stamps without the need to stockpile stamps. CHP holders may also lease their CHPs to other users to deplete any unused stamps prior to the transfer of a CHP. Additionally, CHP holders are able to reconcile stamp deficits at the end of the year without penalty. Furthermore, stamps not used in a fishing year do not expire and roll over into all subsequent fishing years until used ( i.e., validated).

Comment 18: This proposed rule precedes the development of operating rules for the RQE, which creates uncertainty regarding how the RQE will function on behalf of the diverse businesses funding it. Commenters noted that there are no requirements on RQE board membership imposed by the proposed rule. How does NMFS intend to prevent the RQE from using funds from this fee collection improperly or operating inefficiently?

Response: This action does not address the existing regulations governing the RQE and any changes to these regulations are outside of the scope of this action. NMFS published a proposed rule to authorize the formation of the RQE on November 17, 2017 (82 FR 46016). NMFS considered implementing requirements on RQE board members but ultimately proposed that no requirements be specified. NMFS received no comments requesting NMFS specify requirements for the RQE board. The final rule to authorize the formation of the RQE did not specify requirements for RQE board members (83 FR 47819, September 21, 2018).

Existing regulations, at §§ 679.5(l)(9) and 679.5(v), require the RQE to submit an annual report to NMFS detailing its activities. This report will provide information on the RQE's structure, expenditures, and other activities such that compliance with applicable law and regulations can be determined. Additionally, the RQE must continue to be recognized as exempt from Federal income tax by the Internal Revenue Service. If the RQE is determined to be out of compliance with regulations, the RQE's own by-laws, or other applicable regulations, the Regional Administrator may suspend the stamp requirement and fee collection, as specified at § 679.46(d).

NMFS will maintain administrative oversight of the RQE operations, including the appropriate use of funds, by virtue of the stipulations and conditions associated with the NMFS grant of funds to the RQE.

Comment 19: The stamp fee and fee increase provision are not appropriate, as the RQE board members and NMFS may change the stamp fee with no additional input from the CHP holders who are subject to paying that increase.

Response: NMFS disagrees that changes to the fee could occur with no input from the CHP holders who are responsible for paying those fees. While the RQE may petition NMFS to initiate a fee change request, any eventual increases to the stamp fee would entail a regulatory amendment because the fee is set in regulation at § 679.46(b)(1). NMFS will comply with all necessary steps required under Federal law, including public input, in promulgating a regulatory amendment. NMFS would consider all comments from the public when deciding to develop any rule implementing a fee change.

Comment 20: Please clarify how the charter halibut fleet will see benefits that result from the fee collection. Will there ever be enough RFQ to lessen restrictions on the charter halibut fleet? When will the RQE purchase halibut QS? What is the endpoint for RQE QS purchases? Will the RQE or NMFS determine when to purchase additional QS?

Response: NMFS expects this action to provide significant funding for the RQE to obtain halibut QS, as explained in the RIR for this action (see ADDRESSES ). It is expected that fees collected by this program will be primarily used by the RQE to purchase halibut QS. The RQE will determine when to purchase halibut QS and the resulting poundage will be added to the charter halibut allocation as RFQ under the CSP. The RIR indicates how these additions to the charter halibut allocation could provide greater opportunities for charter vessel anglers.

In order for the RQE to receive funds from this action, Congress must first appropriate collected funds to NMFS. NMFS then expects to issue funds to the RQE as a grant as soon as practicable. It may be reasonable to expect that Congress appropriates these funds annually. For example, fees collected during the 2026 fishing year could be appropriated to NMFS in 2027 if Congress takes the necessary action. After the appropriation is made, NMFS will work to make these funds available to the RQE as soon as practicable. Once the RQE receives these funds, the RQE will determine when to purchase QS.

Existing regulations allow the RQE annually to purchase up to 1 percent of the commercial QS in IPHC regulatory area 2C, and 1.2 percent of the QS in area 3A, subject to certain restrictions on particular classification types of QS (§ 679.42(f)(8)). Cumulatively over time, existing regulations allow the RQE to hold an amount of halibut QS equivalent to up to 10 percent of the halibut QS in IPHC regulatory area 2C and 12 percent of the halibut QS in area 3A (§ 679.42(f)(8)). The RIR indicates this cumulative amount would have added 341,000 pounds to the IPHC regulatory area 2C charter allocation, and 846,000 pounds to the area 3A charter allocation, based on the QS/IFQ conversion rates in 2020. These amounts are expected to be meaningful when the annual management measures are developed. The additional pounds could allow for less restrictive annual management measures such as bag limits, size limits, and day of the week closures, and in the event of declines in the halibut resource could help avoid more conservative management measures which would further constrain the charter halibut fishery.

Comment 21: Will future CHP entrants that have not paid into the RQE Program fee collection benefit from the QS purchased in previous years?

Response: Yes. QS purchased by the RQE may be held indefinitely and the added allocation from that QS will be available to all CHP holders operating in IPHC regulatory areas 2C and 3A. It should also be noted that existing CHP holders may benefit from increased permit values if the RQE Program increases charter halibut harvest opportunity as it is designed to do.

Comment 22: The RQE should not be allowed to continue using the fee funding to purchase QS should the halibut stock continue to decline. Many commenters were concerned about the potential conservation impacts of this action would have on the halibut stock in its current low abundance state.

Response: Existing RQE regulations at § 679.42(f) establish limits on the amount of QS that the RQE can receive by transfer annually and in total, as explained in the response to comment 20. However, as noted above, Congress authorized stamp fees to be used for other activities besides QS purchases. Those uses may factor into decisions about the amount of the fee, or whether the stamp program should continue. Regardless, after 2028 the RQE may petition NMFS to reduce the stamp fee, or the RQE may petition to suspend the fee at any time.

The RQE Program and associated fee collection action are specifically intended to provide additional harvest opportunities to the charter halibut fishery, particularly during periods of low halibut abundance through a market-based transfer of halibut QS from the commercial sector to the charter halibut sector. This action also provides mechanisms to reduce or suspend the fees in the event they are no longer required or beneficial to the charter industry.

This action is not expected to result in increased impacts to the halibut stock. The RQE Program and the regulations addressed by this final rule for this fee collection program do not change the total halibut mortality limits established annually by the IPHC. As such, if the halibut stock were to decline, the amount of halibut associated with the QS purchased with fee funding would be adjusted according to the limits established on an annual basis. As noted above and in the preamble to the proposed rule, the RQE Program merely represents a voluntary ( i.e., willing buyer, willing seller) transfer of halibut harvest opportunity from one sector (the directed commercial fishery) to another (the charter halibut fishery) in IPHC regulatory areas 2C and 3A, with no overall increase in halibut harvest.

Comment 23: This proposed fee collection adds a substantial cost to participants in the charter halibut fishery, despite the cost per charter vessel angler being $20 per day or per charter vessel fishing trip. This additional cost burden will negatively impact businesses and increase the end cost to charter vessel anglers. Moreover, prices for the 2025 fishing year have already been posted, and this is a new cost to the business not previously factored in. Charter vessel anglers often reserve charter trips one to two years in advance, meaning that charter businesses may not be able to collect this fee, or will have to adjust prices retroactively, which is problematic to clients that have already paid some or all of the previously agreed upon price. To address this, if this action is approved, those commenters recommended delaying fee collection implementation until 2026 or 2027 to allow charter businesses time to adjust and notify future clients.

Response: NMFS agrees that this final rule should be implemented in 2026 to avoid disruptions to business operations from a mid-season implementation, including the disruptions identified in public comments. NMFS set the effective date of this final rule to January 1, 2026.

NMFS acknowledges that this action, which has been in development since 2019, results in additional costs to CHP holders and charter businesses, which they may choose to pass on to other charter halibut fishery participants. The impacts are described in detail at Section 3.5.5 of the RIR. However, over the long term, this action is expected to benefit the charter halibut sector participants by increasing the charter sector's share of the annual halibut allocation.

Public comments and the RIR that led to this action suggest that some or all of these additional costs will be passed on to charter vessel anglers, thereby spreading the burden of the payments to others who may also benefit from an increased charter halibut allocation.

NMFS recognizes that the total sum of fees paid for halibut stamps in a given fishing year is substantial. With the $20 stamp fee, as noted in section 3.5.5 of the RIR, the average cost to a charter halibut business is estimated to be approximately $5,600 annually in IPHC regulatory area 2C and $7,500 annually in area 3A. In both IPHC regulatory areas the maximum cost could be over $50,000 for some CHP holders. The estimated total annual revenues from stamps in IPHC regulatory area 2C is $1.79 million, and $2.20 million from area 3A. Section 3.5.1.2 of the RIR further discusses the potential revenue from the stamp. However, NMFS notes that these costs are also proportional to the gross revenue of the business because the number of stamps is equivalent to the number of charter vessel anglers served. Disproportionate costs on smaller entities are one of the more important reasons that the Council chose not to recommend, and NMFS has not implemented, a flat fee on CHP holders or a multi-day stamp sold at a discounted rate.

Furthermore, NMFS recognizes that charter vessel anglers currently pay a significant amount to participate in the charter halibut fishery. NMFS considered this when developing this action. If considered in the context of costs for travel, lodging, and meals associated with the charter vessel fishing trip that are also required, the impact of this additional fee on individuals is marginal. The $20 fee amount is small relative to the existing costs of participating in the charter halibut fishery while also providing significant funding to the RQE which should yield additional harvest opportunities to charter fishery participants through a market-based transfer of halibut QS from the commercial fishery to the charter fishery. The structure of the halibut stamp program allows the flexibility of CHP holders to share those costs with other participants in the charter halibut fishery if they choose to do so.

Comment 24: Costs imposed by the RQE Program fee collection encourages nonresident anglers to choose self-guided charters.

Response: As described in the response to Comment 23, the $20 stamp amount is not significant in the context of total costs to participate in the charter halibut fishery. The RIR indicates that the great majority of charter vessel anglers fish for halibut for one to three days. If charter halibut businesses pass the entire cost of halibut stamps to their anglers, this would add $20 to $60 in fees for these anglers. CHP holders may choose to pass along only some or even no additional costs to charter vessel anglers. Therefore, it is unclear whether this additional cost will negatively impact the number of persons who choose to participate in halibut charter fishing, particularly if the net benefits of the RQE Program provide more harvest opportunities to charter vessel anglers.

Comment 25: The proposed fee collection is more beneficial to certain charter halibut fishery participants. CHP holders with a large number of lessees and single vessel owners do not benefit equivalently to charter halibut fishery participants deploying multiple vessels from a larger port.

Response: The RQE Program and this fee collection are intended to broadly benefit the entire charter halibut fishery through equitable contributions from all users. As halibut abundance continues to fluctuate, the fees collected from this action may be important to stabilize management measures such as bag limits and day-of-the-week closures that can have significant impacts to certain charter business models and may potentially provide growth opportunities to other charter halibut fishery participants that can take advantage of relaxed management measures.

Comment 26: IPHC regulatory areas 2C and 3A should have fee collection funds allocated proportionally to each area based on the fee revenue generated from each respective area.

Response: NMFS disagrees. Total fees collected from IPHC regulatory areas 2C and 3A will be directly proportional to the number of charter vessel anglers on charter vessel fishing trips in each area. The RQE, which is composed of board members who represent each of the IPHC regulatory areas, has the discretion to purchase proportional amounts of halibut QS for each area. Reasons the RQE may not choose to purchase QS proportionally in each area during each year would likely be related to market conditions, including QS availability in each area and pricing.

Comment 27: NMFS is not using all relevant data and should conduct additional analyses before continuing with this action. Many aspects of the proposed fee collection have changed since the Council first took action: the GAF Program is working well for charter halibut fishery participants who want to market opportunities to catch larger halibut or avoid daily closures; the halibut resource is in a precarious state, which raises questions as to whether the RQE will be able to purchase enough QS to influence annual regulatory measures; the sportfishing industry continues to grow, showing that many charter halibut fishery participants can successfully sell trips even with the current size limits; and the Council has refused to address the unregulated growth in self-guided fishing trips.

Response: NMFS has determined that the RIR is sufficient to support the regulations adopted by this final rule. The RIR, the analysis that supported the development of the RQE Program, and comments received on the proposed rule clearly indicate how a greater share of the combined halibut catch limits to the charter sector may allow charter businesses to offer greater opportunities to their clients. Both the GAF Program and the RQE Program are intended to help maintain these opportunities and are especially relevant in periods of low halibut abundance when annual management measures are necessarily restrictive.

NMFS agrees that the GAF Program is working as intended. The success of this program provides evidence that willing buyer-willing seller options to shift halibut allocation from the commercial sector to the charter sector are valid, effective, and reasonable. NMFS notes that the GAF Program is designed to benefit individual participants in the charter halibut fishery, while the RQE Program benefits the charter sector as a whole. Each program will continue to operate concurrently.

While regulating unguided fishing trips is outside of the scope of this action, the Council previously evaluated this issue in 2019 and decided to take no action due to several factors, including challenges in quantifying the number and geographic scope of non-guided rental boat activities and determining the amount of halibut effort and removals that might be associated with this form of unguided recreational halibut fishing. However, the Council process allows the public to raise such concerns as new information becomes available.

Comment 28: The Act authorizes fees to be collected from the charter vessel operators. The RQE Program fee collection should require charter vessel operators or charter vessel guides to purchase stamps.

Response: NMFS disagrees. Section 6 of the Act authorizes the development of regulations “for the collection of fees from charter vessel operators.” We do not interpret this provision so restrictively to mean that only a charter vessel operator can be required to purchase stamps. The CHP holder would otherwise be indirectly responsible for the failure to purchase stamps and is in a better position to directly carry the burden of purchasing them. This rulemaking therefore imposes that obligation on the CHP holder, consistent with Congress' intent, purpose, and plain meaning of the Act. Indeed, under longstanding regulations at § 300.67(a)(1), every CHP holder is obligated to ensure that associated charter vessel operators and charter vessel guides comply with all applicable regulatory requirements. Further, CHP holders commonly are the charter vessel operators themselves.

There are also additional reasons to impose the obligation to purchase stamps on CHP holders. If NMFS was to impose that duty on charter vessel operators, the costs of administering this program would increase markedly. Charter vessel guides and charter vessel operators are often employees of the CHP holder and they hold no durable link to NMFS or the charter halibut regulatory programs. Conversely, CHP holders already have established an annual administrative relationship with NMFS. As a result, if charter vessel operators were required to purchase stamps, many new administrative accounts would have to be created. Ultimately, this would mean that there would be a much higher number of eFISH users, the number of eFISH users could change significantly each year, and the technical support that NMFS would need to provide to maintain this system would significantly increase costs. Because the Act authorizes the deduction of administrative costs from the fees collected, this would reduce the benefits of the RQE Program, which would be at odds with Congress's intent and purpose in passing the Act. The requirements for CHP holders in the RQE Program are also consistent with other NMFS regulations that obligate persons or business entities who hold exclusive fishing rights to ensure regulatory compliance for most of the actions associated with their permits ( e.g., § 679.85(a)(1)).

Finally, collecting fees from CHP holders will make the RQE fee collection provisions more readily enforceable than collecting fees from charter vessel operators. In the event of a stamp deficiency, NMFS's only remedy would be to pursue collections against charter vessel operators, who are not required to register otherwise with NMFS. This contrasts with program enforcement for CHP holders, who are limited in number and have greater incentives to timely pay any stamp deficiency and, therein, ensure their CHPs are current and active. Indeed, a CHP is an important asset that a holder has a vested interest in maintaining, and it must be registered with NMFS annually before use. NMFS can require payment of outstanding fees before renewing a CHP.

Comment 29: The RQE Program fee collection places an extra burden on the CQE to purchase and manage stamps in their account throughout the fishing year.

Response: NMFS acknowledges this comment. As described in the proposed rule, CQEs participate in the Charter Halibut Limited Access Program and may be granted Community CHPs by NMFS. Charter operations that use community CHPs are subject to the same annual management measures as all other charter halibut operations. The administrative and management burden by CQEs and all other charter halibut operations are expected to be offset by the benefits of the RQE Program. NMFS designed the elements of the fee collection to minimize the administrative burden to the extent practicable. CQEs would have significant flexibility to administer their stamps in the way that is most advantageous to them.

Comment 30: Only CHP holders are allowed to use accounts to purchase stamps, but some CHP holders lease permits to charter vessel guides who do not hold CHPs. In addition to added difficulties tracking validations across multiple CHPs, this creates tax challenges for the CHP holder as well as the lessee without proper tax documentation, such as receipts. A charter vessel guide should be able to purchase stamps to use in his business. In particular, charter vessel guides leasing a nontransferable CHP should be responsible for purchasing and tracking the stamps associated with that CHP.

Response: NFMS disagrees. As the commenters note, CHPs are commonly leased, and the charter vessel guide who leases, or otherwise uses, the CHP may not be the person who holds or owns the CHP. The CHP holder will ultimately be responsible for ensuring that an adequate number of stamps has been purchased to cover the number of stamp validations that are made by the person who leases, or otherwise uses, the CHP. This action does not limit the ability of CHP holders to incorporate terms related to stamps into their private CHP lease agreements.

NMFS does not expect that this program design will create additional tax challenges. As with any fee paid to lease a CHP, the cost of stamps may simply constitute a business expense. While NMFS would not provide a record of stamp transactions directly to the person leasing a CHP, as NMFS does not regulate and does not have, or provide, any record of CHP lease transactions, there is nothing preventing this from being documented in a private business agreement. A CHP holder may share the record of stamp validations associated with a CHP that will be provided to them in eFISH with any person leasing their permit as supporting documentation.

NMFS will provide a record of stamp validations to the CHP holder that includes validations by individual CHP to CHP holders with multiple CHPs. Additionally, ADF&G logbooks will provide a record of all the stamp validations that charter vessel guides made that are associated with that charter business.

NMFS also notes that ADF&G logbooks are equipped to allow logbook users, such as the charter vessel guide, to individually query the historical data they have supplied on the logbook. Therefore, a charter operation that leases one or more CHPs will have ongoing records of the number and date of halibut stamp validations that have occurred on each of their charter vessel trips. This information is sufficient for the business needs of the charter operations, including for CHP lease transactions and tax purposes.

Finally, NMFS disagrees that the applicability of and responsibility for these fee collection provisions should vary between transferable and non-transferable CHPs because these permits are functionally identical except for transferability. The transferability of a CHP does not affect whether a CHP may be leased or not and does not affect the respective responsibilities of the lessee or lessor. Therefore, there is no rationale establish differential requirements for tacking and purchasing stamps between transferable and non-transferable CHPs.

Comment 31: CHP holders who lease their CHP to multiple charter vessel guides may have issues tracking stamp validations. Stamps should be assigned to the charter vessel guides and specific CHPs, instead of being lumped into a single eFISH account. CHP holders who hold multiple CHPs should be allowed to create individual eFISH accounts for each CHP to ease the burden of tracking individual lessees and their validations.

Response: NMFS disagrees. Tracking the use of charter halibut stamps will begin with halibut stamp validation on ADF&G logbooks. Among other things, logbooks document the CHP serial number(s), the vessel number, and identifiers for the ADF&G registered business that is associated with each charter vessel trip. The logbook data will be collected by ADF&G and shared with NMFS. NMFS intends to merge this data to the eFISH account of each CHP holder. The compiled records in the CHP holder's account will allow the CHP holder to effectively track the daily validation of stamps associated with each unique CHP.

Assigning stamps to charter vessel guides and specific CHPs would materially increase the cost, complexity, and burden of the RQE Program fee collection. Specifically, a CHP, and NMFS, would have to individually administer access and payment to a separate account for each CHP they hold. Given the flexibility allowed in CHP leasing, adjustments to these individual accounts would likely have to be made multiple times per year. Therefore, while it is possible that certain CHP holders who lease multiple CHPs could benefit from stamp accounts associated with individual CHPs, on the whole this approach would result in significant additional administrative cost and time burden associated with the program. Therefore, NMFS chose to have a single stamp account associated with each CHP holder for all of their CHPs.

Comment 32: Charter vessel guides who lease a permit through a broker may not know the CHP holder personally. Please clarify what happens if the CHP holder does not purchase the necessary stamps for the charter vessel guide.

Response: CHP holders are responsible for maintaining an eFISH account and purchasing enough stamps to ensure that the number of validated stamps from charter vessels that use their CHP(s) does not exceed the number of stamps that have been purchased in a given year as required.

If a charter vessel guide validates a number of stamps in excess of the number of stamps purchased by the CHP holder, the CHP holder is responsible for reconciling the deficit. If the deficit is not reconciled within the required time period, the CHP holder will receive an Initial Administrative Determination imposing one or more of the following consequences. Under these circumstances, NMFS may disapprove the transfer application of the CHP and all associated CHPs from that CHP holder until the outstanding stamps are purchased to correct the deficit, except that NMFS may return unused GAF to the IFQ permit holder's account from which it was derived. NMFS may also disapprove a CHP holder's annual registration application for their CHP and all associated CHPs until the outstanding stamps are purchased. Under similar circumstances, NMFS may also invalidate a community or military CHP.

Comment 33: The RQE fee collection will cause logistical issues for charter vessel guides that operate out of remote ports.

Response: NMFS disagrees. This program's design prioritizes flexibility to account for the unique qualities of the many business models that operate under the Charter Halibut Limited Access Program. For example, stamps may be purchased at any time, and in quantities that make sense for a particular business. That means charter vessels operating out of remote ports may purchase stamps at their convenience when CHP holders have access to their eFISH account. Further, validation of stamps can occur anywhere, including in remote areas, just as charter vessel guides currently comply with all other logbook requirements.

In the event a charter vessel guide has an insufficient number of stamps, they may continue to operate, but the holder of the CHP that the charter vessel guide is operating under must correct the deficiency prior to the end of the calendar year. The stamp validation reconciliation occurs at the end of each calendar year, well after all known charter fishing operations cease for the year.

Comment 34: Please clarify whether there is a limit on the number of stamps a CHP holder may purchase.

Response: There is no limit to the number of stamps a CHP holder may purchase.

Comment 35: ADF&G should administer stamp purchases.

Response: NMFS disagrees. The RQE Program fee collection is a Federal initiative. ADF&G has agreed to let NMFS rely on its infrastructure to the extent practicable through use of the ADF&G logbook for validation of stamps. To minimize costs, decrease the time it takes to transfer funds to correct Federal accounts for eventual distribution to the RQE, and to ensure the accountability of CHP holders, NMFS will use its existing, secure eFISH program for stamp purchases.

Comment 36: At-sea enforcement of the RQE Program fee collection will be a lengthy and costly process. Please clarify the nature of penalties and who will be held liable.

Response: NMFS anticipates that most RQE Program fee collection enforcement activities will be conducted during the course of existing enforcement activities and therefore will not add significantly to existing enforcement costs. CHP holders are responsible for purchasing a sufficient number of stamps to meet or exceed the number of validations associated with their CHP(s) in a given fishing year. Charter vessel guides are responsible for validating stamps prior to the start of each charter vessel fishing trip, or each calendar day during a charter vessel fishing trip that spans multiple days. The penalties for failing to meet these responsibilities are set forth in statute and regulation and are assessed according to the NOAA Penalty Policy and, for certain violations, according to NOAA Summary Settlement Schedules (see https://www.noaa.gov/general-counsel/gc-enforcement-section/penalty-policy-and-schedules ).

Comment 37: NMFS's collection of fees for its administrative role in the RQE Program fee collection should be offset by the cost recovery fees the RQE pays to NMFS. Over half of NMFS's annual budget from cost recovery is spent on enforcement, and enforcement of the RQE Program fee collection is not likely to impose significant additional demand on the agency. NMFS should provide transparent detailing of costs to be reimbursed in an annual itemized report that is made available to the public.

Response: NMFS developed this final rule to minimize administrative costs to the extent practicable, including those related to enforcement. Cost recovery fees ( i.e., IFQ Program cost recovery) paid by the RQE to NMFS would be used to recover eligible costs related to the IFQ Program, which may offset some portion of the total administrative costs of the RQE Program. However, NMFS does not expect that all of its costs to administer the RQE Program are eligible for reimbursement under IFQ Program cost recovery. The remainder of NMFS's administrative costs related to the RQE Program may be recouped from the RQE Program fee collection as the Act provides. More detail on expected enforcement costs related to this action is provided in the response to comment 36. NMFS will continue to work to minimize costs during implementation and operation of the RQE Program fee collection. Additionally, NMFS will evaluate agency expenses each year and provide the public with a report consistent with its existing cost recovery reporting practices.

Comment 38: This action impacts the flexibility of extended fishing trips or trips impacted by weather where there may not be a set schedule for fishing where stamps may be validated but the fishing trip is ultimately canceled. In the event that a trip is cancelled, validated stamps should be refunded.

Response: NMFS disagrees. For charter vessel fishing trips that span multiple days, stamp validation must occur prior to the first deployment of fishing gear into the water each calendar day, as with other existing State of Alaska ADF&G logbook requirements. As a result, if there is uncertainty in whether halibut fishing can occur due to weather or other reasons on a given day, a charter vessel guide may wait to validate stamps until immediately before fishing gear is deployed—that is, until the charter vessel fishing trip (§ 300.61) begins.

Stamp validation is different from purchasing stamps. While stamps should be purchased prior to validation, the regulations allow CHP holders the flexibility to purchase stamps after a charter vessel fishing trip when necessary.

Comment 39: It should be permissible to retain incidental halibut catch during salmon charter fishing trips by allowing for mid-trip validation of stamps after gear deployment. To do this, the regulations should allow for the validation of stamps upon retention of a halibut instead of when there is intent to retain the halibut. The anticipated funds from this fee collection will be recovered by salmon and rockfish charters that unintentionally catch a halibut.

Response: NMFS disagrees. Such an approach would be inconsistent with the Council's recommendations and would also present significant enforcement concerns. The Council's recommendations specify that stamps will be required for charter vessel anglers 18 years of age or older for each day they intend to catch and retain halibut. Notably, the Council's recommendations are consistent with other wildlife stamp programs, such as the State of Alaska king salmon stamp which is required to both fish for and retain king salmon.

This final rule is consistent with the Council's recommendations and contemplates situations where halibut are caught and retained by charter vessel anglers targeting other species, such as salmon. Before the deployment of fishing gear, regardless of the species targeted, the charter vessel guide and a charter vessel angler will need to decide whether the angler intends to retain halibut caught on that trip. If a charter vessel angler decides not to retain a halibut or they believe the opportunity to catch a halibut is unlikely, such as on a trip that targets salmon, then the charter vessel angler and charter vessel guide might decide not to validate a stamp for that trip. Conversely, if the charter vessel angler and charter vessel guide intend to retain halibut on a charter vessel fishing trip, whether the fish are caught incidentally or targeted, a stamp must be validated before fishing gear is deployed ( i.e., before the charter vessel fishing trip begins).

Additionally, this program design addresses enforcement concerns. By requiring stamp validation to occur before a charter vessel fishing trip begins, the regulations discourage charter vessel guides from opportunistically validating charter halibut stamps only when they believe they would be questioned by enforcement personnel.

Regarding the anticipated funds collected by a fee collection that would allow for incidental validation of stamps ( i.e., being able to validate a stamp at any time, including after unintentionally catching a halibut and deciding to retain it), NMFS is unable to predict the number of charter vessel anglers who plan to catch and retain halibut given the available data; however, the RIR examines available data on the number of days where ADF&G logbooks indicated some angling effort was devoted to bottom fishing on that particular charter vessel fishing trip. By logical extension, angler days summed in this manner would reasonably be greater than the number of angler days where halibut were retained ( i.e., not all anglers who engage in bottom fishing retain halibut, even if the charter trip targets halibut). Similarly, it is reasonable to assume that the number of stamps validated before a charter vessel angler intends to catch and retain halibut would be greater than the number of stamps validated only when halibut are retained.

Comment 40: Please clarify whether a charter vessel guide must specify the IPHC regulatory area where the vessel will operate prior to leaving the dock or while validating stamps.

Response: The charter vessel guide is not required to indicate which IPHC regulatory area they will be operating in as part of the stamp validation process. However, a charter vessel guide must have a CHP appropriately endorsed for the IPHC regulatory area they are operating in, and the CHP(s) used for the charter vessel fishing trip must have the required number of charter halibut stamps validated that are required for that charter vessel fishing trip prior to the first deployment of gear for each fishing day.

Comment 41: The intent-based validation of stamps should be changed to a retention-based validation of stamps. The Council's Enforcement Committee recommended an annual fee assessment in order to avoid expenditure of enforcement resources. The additional funding acquired from retention of incidental halibut catch will offset the funding lost by removing the intent-based validation of stamps.

Response: NMFS disagrees. The Council and NMFS considered an annual fee levied on CHP holders as a possible way to reduce administrative costs by relying primarily on existing NMFS infrastructure. Table 19 of the RIR summarizes the benefits and challenges associated with this fee mechanism, and section 3.5.1.5 of the RIR further describes some of the expected long-term and short-term administrative costs. NMFS considered this annual fee, but did not select this fee structure due to concerns that it may not equitably distribute the fee burden across CHP holders. More discussion on this is provided in the response to Comment 15.

The response to comment 39 addresses the expected difference in fee collection when comparing an intent-based stamp versus one that could be validated at any time to account for incidental catch.

Comment 42: The comment period for this rule should be extended until September 1, 2025 to allow for further comment by the public, including charter vessel clients.

Response: NMFS disagrees. This action has been in development since April 2019. Public comments were accepted throughout this period at Council meetings, as well as the standard 30-day comment period provided by the proposed rule. Additionally, outreach events were held in several communities throughout Areas 2C and 3A and were scheduled during the off season, as this is when persons involved in the charter industry were most available. Furthermore, the timing of the comment period provided by the proposed rule in the off-season allowed fishery participants who might otherwise be busy in the fishery greater opportunity to comprehensively evaluate and comment on this action. Please see the preamble to the proposed rule for more detail information on the lengthy public process undertaken to develop the RQE Program fee collection (89 FR 86772, October 31, 2024).

Comment 43: Several commenters suggested that commercial trawl vessels should contribute to the cost of these stamps or proposed other more restrictive management measures for trawl fisheries.

Response: Management of trawl fisheries is outside of the scope of this action. Furthermore, Congress authorized, through the Act, that RQE Program fees be collected only from charter vessel operators.

Comment 44: NMFS should establish a similar funding mechanism for CQE communities.

Response: Establishing funding mechanisms for CQE communities is outside the scope of this action.

Comment 45: Non-transferable CHPs should be transferable in lieu of a stamp.

Response: Changing the transferability of CHPs is outside the scope of this action. However, NMFS notes that this action, and all other CHP program provisions not related to CHP transferability, apply equally to transferable and non-transferable CHPs.

Comment 46: Why is QS beyond that which allows the fleet to retain two halibut of any size distributed back to the commercial sector? These QS were purchased legally by the RQE.

Response: The RQE Program, implemented in 2018, establishes a temporary redistribution of QS back to the commercial fishery if the RQE holds halibut QS in excess of what would allow charter vessel anglers to retain two halibut of any size per day. This is a component of the original RQE Program rules and is not a subject of this rule.

Comment 47: QS purchased by the RQE should not be returned to the commercial sector.

Response: This action does not implement or modify existing regulations pertaining to the RQE's purchase and disposition of QS at § 679.41. Therefore, this comment is outside of the scope of this action.

Comment 48: Several commenters suggested modifications to the annual management measures applicable to the charter halibut fishery, including that IPHC regulatory areas 2C and 3A should be limited to one halibut per day for charter vessel fishing trips and adding monitoring requirements for the charter halibut fishery that are consistent with the commercial halibut fishery.

Response: This action does not address bag limits or other management measures for the charter halibut fishery; therefore, this comment is outside of the scope of this action. However, as previously discussed, the fees collected as a result of this action may allow for increased flexibility in selecting annual management measures.

Comment 49: The halibut size limits imposed on the charter fleet should apply to self-guided fishing trips as well.

Response: Changing halibut size limits imposed on self-guided anglers is outside the scope of this action.

Comment 50: Please clarify the details of the RQE Program with respect to the function of the program, how quota is determined, and how the program interacts with the commercial fleet.

Response: This action does not address or modify elements of the RQE Program related to the transfer of QS from the commercial sector or how the RQE's QS is applied each year. These details can be found in the final rule document for the RQE Program (83 FR 47819, September 21, 2018) and Federal regulations at § 679.41.

Comment 51: The charter halibut stamp should be a physical stamp or logo so that charter vessel anglers have a tangible record of their fishing trip.

Response: NMFS considered printable stamps but chose to issue electronic stamps instead due to electronic stamps' distinct advantages in cost, distribution, and accounting compared to paper or other forms of physical stamps. These considerations are particularly important for stamps that must be validated on (at minimum) a daily basis, as opposed to other types of stamps such as State of Alaska king salmon stamps that are valid for an entire year or season.

No comments were specifically related to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act (IRFA), and NMFS addresses comments that concern costs generally throughout the “Comments and Responses” section and in the Classification section.

The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with section 106 of the Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Halibut Act, and other applicable law.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. This final rule is not a regulatory action for purposes of Executive Order 14192 because it is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

A Tribal summary impact statement under section (5)(b)(2)(B) and section (5)(c)(2)(B) of E.O. 13175 was not required for this final rule because this action does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal Governments, this action is required by statute, and this action does not preempt Tribal law. A Tribal summary impact statement is not required and has not been prepared.

This FRFA incorporates the IRFA, a summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, NMFS's responses to those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support this action.

Section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that, when an agency promulgates a final rule under section 553 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code, after being required by that section or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking, the agency shall prepare a FRFA. Section 604 describes the required contents of a FRFA: a statement of the need for and objectives for this final rule; a statement of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, a statement of the assessment of the agency of such issues, and a statement of any changes made to the proposed rule as a result of such comments; the response of the agency to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) in response to the proposed rule, and a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rule in this final rule as a result of the comments; a description of and an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule will apply or an explanation of why no such estimate is available; a description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities that will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record; and a description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in this final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.

A description of this final rule and the need for and objectives of this final rule are contained in the preamble to this final rule and the preamble to the proposed rule (89 FR 86772, October 31, 2024) and are not repeated here.

NMFS published the proposed rule on October 31, 2024 (89 FR 86772). An IRFA was prepared and summarized in the Classification section of the preamble to the proposed rule. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA did not file any comments on the proposed rule.

NMFS received no comments specifically on the IRFA. However, many commenters were concerned with the additional costs imposed on charter businesses by this stamp requirement. Commenters were also concerned with the additional time burden of complying with this final rule. Some commenters suggested requiring individual charter vessel anglers to pay the fee rather than CHP holders. However, Congress only provided authorization for NMFS to collect fees from charter vessel operators, not individual anglers. In Comments and Responses above, Comment 28 addresses this concern.

This final rule requires a charter halibut stamp for each charter vessel angler, 18 years of age or older, for each charter vessel fishing trip in a given calendar day, or each calendar day during a charter vessel fishing trip that spans multiple days, that the charter vessel angler intends to catch and retain halibut on a charter vessel in IPHC regulatory area 2C or 3A, unless that charter vessel angler retains halibut landed as GAF on days that are otherwise closed by regulation to halibut retention. Charter vessel guides are obligated to ensure that there are validated stamps for each charter vessel angler fishing for halibut on a charter vessel. CHP holders are ultimately responsible for purchasing a sufficient quantity of stamps each fishing year.

Thus, for RFA purposes, those entities that are directly regulated by the action are charter halibut businesses ( i.e., Sportfishing Guide Business Owners), charter vessel guides, CHP holders (including CHPs issued under the CQE and MWR programs), and the RQE. The thresholds applied to determine if an entity or group of entities is considered a “small” business under the RFA depends on the industry classification for the entity or entities.

The ADF&G logbook data shows that, between 2017 and 2022, there were as many as 478 charter halibut businesses, with the low count of 342 occurring in 2021. The most recent data available shows 368 directly regulated charter halibut businesses in 2022. The count of directly regulated charter halibut guides was lowest in 2020, at 820, and highest in 2019 when 1,240 charter vessel guides participated in the affected fishery. Data for the most recent year, 2022, identified 1,037 directly regulated charter vessel guides. Charter vessel guides that are employees of charter halibut businesses are not directly regulated entities under the RFA. However, guides that are independent contractors are directly regulated by this action and would be considered directly regulated entities under the RFA.

There is no annual census data collection of gross revenues for charter businesses or charter vessel guides with which to compare to the $14 million threshold. A voluntary Alaska Saltwater Sport Fishing Charter Business Survey has been conducted by the Alaska Fisheries Science Center, which has gathered information on expenses, revenues, and business characteristics for the 2011, 2013, 2015, and 2017 fishing years. As demonstrated in the most recent Cost and Earnings Report, as detailed in the RIR for this action, the mean gross revenue for the population of charter businesses was between $200,894 (in 2012) and $302,609 (in 2013). These estimates are based on self-reported sales and revenues of charter trips (not necessarily charter vessel fishing trips for halibut) and include client referrals and booking commission revenue as well as revenue accrued by leasing a CHP. These estimates do not account for values derived from additional accommodations or food/beverage service.

Based on the difference between the SBA threshold ($14 million) and the mean revenue for charter businesses reported in the RIR, the available evidence indicates that all directly regulated businesses and associated charter vessel guides are considered “small.” If a business was large enough, potentially including lodging and multiple recreational activities, it is possible it could exceed the SBA threshold. However, there is no data to identify if or how many businesses may fit into this category; thus, all businesses are considered “small.”

Moreover, there is no available data to determine the relationship charter vessel guides have to the business ( e.g., owner/operator, hourly or salaried employee, contracted partnership, etc. ). However, given the relative difference between estimated gross revenue at the business level and the $14 million threshold, those charter vessel guides that represent a separate entity are very likely still considered a small entity by SBA standards. Similarly, CQEs, MWRs, and the RQE are considered to be small entities due to their relationship to the charter fishery. Analysis of the QS purchase limitations of one percent annually and ten percent total are estimated to produce total value of just over $2 million in annual revenue by year ten in IPHC regulatory area 2C and approximately $5.6 million in total value annual value after ten years in IPHC regulatory area 3A. Thus, the CQE and RQE entities are considered to be directly regulated small entities.

The action alternative analyzed two options for funding the RQE. The first, and the basis of this action, is the stamp paid for by CHP holders with the stamp fees potentially passed on to individual charter vessel anglers. The second alternative is an annual CHP holder fee collection. Note that charter vessel anglers are considered individuals and not directly regulated small entities under the RFA definition. However, as demonstrated in this IRFA, based on the information that is available, all charter halibut businesses and charter vessel guides are considered to be directly regulated small entities. Charging an annual CHP holder-based fee that did not vary depending on the number of charter vessel anglers served may disproportionately impact some directly regulated small entities. The stamp method of fee collection would utilize a market-based approach to fund the RQE that is proportional to each CHP holder's use of the resource. There are costs associated with this action. These include direct costs for the stamps, which are designed to provide a directly corresponding benefit to charter businesses by increasing allocation. With the $20 stamp fee, as noted in section 3.5.5 of the RIR, the average cost to a charter halibut business is estimated to be approximately $5,600 annually in IPHC regulatory area 2C and $7,500 annually in area 3A. In both IPHC regulatory areas the maximum cost could be over $50,000 for some CHP holders. The estimated total annual revenues from stamps in IPHC regulatory area 2C is $1.79 million, and $2.20 million from area 3A. However, NMFS notes that these costs are also proportional to the gross revenue of the business because the number of stamps is equivalent to the number of charter vessel anglers served. The second category of costs are those required to administer the program, which may be deducted from stamp revenues.

Therefore, development of the administrative elements of this action selected options designed to maximize efficiency and benefits to the directly regulated entities. These choices include allowing holders of multiple CHPs to pool their stamps for use on any of those CHPs, rolling unused stamps over to the next fishing year, disallowing transfers of stamps, and utilizing preexisting electronic systems for purchasing stamps. As a result, administrative costs are expected to be only a small portion of total stamp revenues.

Furthermore, this action was requested and helped developed by charter halibut fishery representatives and stakeholders. The analysis of benefits of the stamp fee collection funding mechanism indicates that this is a generally beneficial action in that it provides individual charter vessel anglers with potential opportunities for eased restrictions on halibut retention and greater business opportunities for charter halibut businesses and charter vessel guides. The second alternative of implementing an annual CHP holder fee was deemed insufficient, as it may have disproportionately impacted small entities, which, despite less the halibut resource, would pay the same amount as a larger user under this approach. Thus, based upon the best available scientific data, it appears that there are no significant alternatives to the action that have the potential to accomplish the stated objectives of the section 106 of the Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Halibut Act, and any other statutes, and minimize any significant adverse economic impact of the action on small entities while preventing overfishing.

NMFS has not identified any duplication, overlap, or conflict between this final rule and existing Federal rules.

This final rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). OMB did not receive any comments related to the collection-of-information requirements during the PRA comment period, which were outlined in the proposed rule and associated PRA package that was submitted to OMB. NMFS received several comments that relate both to the contents of the proposed rule and its new collection-of-information requirements. Comments 9, 15, 16, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, and 40 relate to different aspects of the new collection-of-information requirements and NMFS's rationale can be found in the responses to those comments. This final rule maintains the proposed rule's changes to the existing requirements for the collection of information for OMB Control Number 0648-0575 (Alaska Halibut Fisheries: Charter) by adding the purchase of charter halibut stamps, adding one new field to the existing ADF&G logbook to record the number of stamps validated on each charter vessel fishing trip, and adding appeals for an IAD received for a number of stamps validated in excess of the number of stamps purchased by the CHP holder in a year. NMFS expects that every CHP holder will purchase stamps at least once per season, and likely at some periodic monthly or weekly interval. This final rule does not change the number of respondents or the responses for the ADF&G logbook. The ADF&G logbook is already completed for every charter vessel fishing trip, and the stamp validation field would be required to be completed for every charter vessel fishing trip that intends to catch and retain halibut. These information collections are necessary to collect fees and administer, and to enforce the RQE Program that was requested by charter halibut fishery stakeholders. Public reporting burden is estimated to average 5 minutes to purchase charter halibut stamps; 5 minutes for the ADF&G logbook, which includes 1 minute for completing the additional field in the logbook; and 4 hours for appeals. The public reporting burden includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

We invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be submitted on the following website: https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by using the search function and entering either the title of the collection or the OMB Control Number 0648-0575.

Notwithstanding any other provisions of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. Copies of the proposed rule, this final rule, and the small entity compliance guide are available on the Alaska Region's website at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/pacific-halibut-recreational-quota-entity-program-fee-collection.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR parts 300 and 679 as follows:

Atlantic BFT fisheries are managed under the 2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan (HMS FMP) and its amendments, pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ) and consistent with the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. ). ATCA is the implementing statute for binding recommendations of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). The HMS FMP and its amendments are implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 635. Section 635.27(a) divides the U.S. BFT quota, established by ICCAT and as implemented by the United States among the various domestic fishing categories, per the allocations established in the HMS FMP and its amendments. NMFS is required under the Magnuson-Stevens Act at 16 U.S.C. 1854(g)(1)(D) to provide U.S. fishing vessels with a reasonable opportunity to harvest quotas under relevant international fishery agreements such as the ICCAT Convention, which is implemented domestically pursuant to ATCA.

Under § 635.28(a)(1), NMFS files a closure notice with the Office of the Federal Register for publication when a BFT quota (or subquota) is reached or is projected to be reached. Retaining, possessing, or landing BFT under that quota category is prohibited on and after the effective date and time of a closure notice for that category, for the remainder of the fishing year, until the opening of the subsequent quota period or until such date as specified.

As described in § 635.27(a), the current baseline U.S. BFT quota is 1,316.14 metric tons (mt) (not including the 25 mt ICCAT allocated to the United States to account for bycatch of BFT in pelagic longline fisheries in the Northeast Distant Gear Restricted Area per § 635.27(a)(3)). The Harpoon category baseline quota is 59.2 mt. As described under § 635.27(a)(4), the Harpoon category quota is only available between June 1 and November 15 of each year.

To date, reported landings for the Harpoon category total approximately 55.7 mt. As described above, the baseline quota is 59.2 mt. However, landings estimates from 2024 indicate that the Harpoon, Angling, and General category quotas were exceeded. Thus, under § 635.27(a)(9) and consistent with ICCAT requirements, in order to ensure the overall U.S. quota is not exceeded, NMFS expects to take action later this year to reduce the various category quotas consistent with the estimated overharvest. While that action is not yet final, NMFS must still consider the implications of reduced quotas for various categories, including the Harpoon category. If both the 2024 and 2025 U.S. adjusted quotas are exceeded, under ICCAT requirements, the United States could be required to pay back 125 percent of the second year's (2025) overharvest in 2026. Based on that consideration and the current landings data, as well as average catch rates and anticipated fishing conditions, NMFS has determined that the Harpoon category quota is projected to be reached shortly, and that the Harpoon category should be closed. Therefore, retaining, possessing, or landing large medium or giant ( i.e., measuring 73 inches (185 cm) CFL or greater) BFT by persons aboard vessels permitted in the Harpoon category must cease at 11:30 a.m. local time on July 2, 2025. Should NMFS determine that reasonable fishing opportunities are available at a later date, NMFS may reopen the fishery. At this time, NMFS is closing the Harpoon category BFT fishery for the remainder of the Harpoon category season, which ends November 15, 2025, and thus for the year. The Harpoon category will reopen automatically on June 1, 2026, for the 2026 fishing year. This action applies to Atlantic Tunas Harpoon category (commercial) permitted vessels, and is taken consistent with the regulations at § 635.28(a)(1).

NMFS will continue to monitor the BFT fisheries closely. Per § 635.5(b)(2)(i)(A), dealers are required to submit landing reports within 24 hours of a dealer receiving BFT. Late reporting by dealers compromises NMFS' ability to timely implement actions such as quota and retention limit adjustments, as well as closures, and may result in enforcement actions. Additionally, and separate from the dealer-reporting requirement, Harpoon category vessel owners are required per § 635.5(a)(4) to report their own catch of all BFT retained or discarded dead within 24 hours of the landing(s) or end of each trip, by accessing https://hmspermits.noaa.gov, using the HMS Catch Reporting app, or calling 888-872-8862 (Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time).

Depending on the level of fishing effort and catch rates of BFT, NMFS may determine that additional adjustments are necessary to ensure available subquotas are not exceeded or to enhance scientific data collection from, and fishing opportunities in, all geographic areas. If needed, subsequent adjustments will be published in the Federal Register . In addition, fishermen may access https://hmspermits.noaa.gov, for updates on quota monitoring and inseason adjustments.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1855(d)) and regulations at 50 CFR part 635 and this action is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

The Assistant Administrator for NMFS (AA) finds that pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice of, and an opportunity for public comment on, this action because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest for the following reasons. Specifically, the regulations implementing the HMS FMP and its amendments provide for inseason retention limit adjustments and fishery closures to respond to the unpredictable nature of BFT availability on the fishing grounds, the migratory nature of this species, and the regional variations in the BFT fishery. Providing for prior notice and opportunity to comment is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as this fishery is currently underway and, based on the most recent landings information, the 2025 quota for the Harpoon category is projected to be reached shortly. Delaying this action could result in BFT landings which would exceed the final 2025 Harpoon category quota, which may result in future potential quota reductions for other BFT categories or the 2026 Harpoon category quota, depending on the magnitude of a potential Harpoon category overharvest. NMFS notes that the public had an opportunity to comment on the underlying rulemakings that established the U.S. BFT quota and the inseason adjustment and closure criteria.

For all of the above reasons, the AA also finds that pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d), there is good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness.